Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

You keep going over the same ground and repeating the same nonsense which I've already destroyedI have painstakingly refuted everything you have thus far said, often two or three times, since you keep deliberately repeating the same fallacies. Why do you keep appealing to authority as in Harrit ?Why do you keep repeatedly lying? I am appealing to Harrit's peer-reviewed analysis of the composition of the WTC dust, and you are attacking the man, not his work. You have been repeatedly asked for a peer-reviewed refutation of his work for the last three days and you have so far produced absolutely nothing. He lied several times on Danish TVNo, he did not. You have made this claim four times and provided not one solitary sliver of evidence that he lied about anything. I had to search for his interviews on Danish TV and link them in the hope you would clarify exactly which one he lied in, but again you ignored me and just repeated the same lie again. Exactly how are you not a Nazi?Where was he peer reviewed and by who ? 14 times now and no answer .I provided an utterly exhaustive answer to this question the last time you asked me, when you claimed it was 8 times. How did 8 become 14, why are you ignoring the answers you are being given and why do you presume that I am going to repeat myself simply because you are a transparently dishonest, lying sack of shit?Here is a real scientist destroying Harrits nonsenseAhahahahahaha! Denis G Rancourt is a notorious climate change denier who takes payments from Conservative lobbyists to push their political agenda. He isn't even a chemist. He's a physicist, so his genuine opinion isn't worth a dime, let alone his bought opinion. Denis Rancourt sacked after awarding A+ marks to all 23 students in advanced physics class.http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/arbitrator-upholds-university-of-ottawas-firing-of-tenured-professorWhen former professor and blogger Denis Rancourt referred to her as the University of Ottawa president’s “house negro”, it was a slur that law professor Joanne St. Lewis said went to the heart of her professional reputation and to the heart of who she is as a person.http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/u-of-o-prof-wins-libel-action-awarded-350000-damagesIn 2007, Rancourt published a detailed essay of his opinions that has since served as platform for certain politicians, like American Senator James Inhofe, to discredit scientific results supporting climate change.http://uk.businessinsider.com/scientists-who-deny-climate-change-2015- 10/#denis-rancourt-is-a-former-professor-of-physics-at-university-of-ottawa-who-was-banned-from-the-university-in-2008-for-his-unconventional-approach-to-teaching-and-grading-4 I found many scientific errorsLOL. Where and what were these "errors"? This is a typical right wing fallacy where a person is attacked but left defenceless since the attacker makes no mention of what they are actually attacking. It is the functional equivalent of saying: "your paper was shit".Many members of the 911 Truth movement use an "appeal to authority" argument in advancing Harrit's paper as "peer reviewed".Except this isn't an "appeal to authority argument", is it? It's a fact. Harrit's paper has been fully peer-reviewed by other scholars in his field. Contradictorily, Rancourt's empty rhetoric has been peer-reviewed by precisely NOBODY! He has not provided a single scientific rebuttal, which probably explains why he can't get it through peer review.An appeal to authority is when you appeal to a person simply for having qualifications, which is precisely what you have done by quoting this climate change denying, racist eccentric who was SACKED from his job at Ottawa University. You are trying to make a meal about this guy "resigning", but the fact is he was FIRED from his last job. Hence, you are a hypocrite and a disingenuous twat who quite literally has bigger double standards than Hitler.I don't know the name for this particular sophistry but I know that many papers on important topics are wrong, believed to be wrong, and are never contested.I know the name of the particular sophistry Rancourt is using. It's called guilt by association. He is saying that because some apples are green the red apple in my hand is therefore green.I wrote an expert critical peer review of the Harrit paper HERERancourt is not qualified to peer-review Harrit's paper because Harrit is a chemist. Rancourt is not a chemist. Furthermore, anybody who describes their own work as "expert" is clearly not an expert at anything except stroking their own ego.Harrit was immediately informed and has not yet provided any substantive response.Why would he? If he doesn't respond to your non peer-reviewed nonsense posts then why would he respond to Rancourt's non peer-reviewed nonsense posts? Oh, that's right! Because Rancourt has a PhD and hence is appealing to his own false (i.e. "expert") authority. Lol.As an expert in the relevant areasAgain! Lol. I am an "expert" so do not question my bullshit. This guy claims to be an "expert" in pretty much everything. He claims to be an expert in climate science and in chemistry, except hang on, his PhD was in physics. Ahahahahahaha! This is what your own source said on the Kevin Barrett Show:-Physics professor and academic freedom fighter Denis Rancourt appeared on the Kevin Barrett Show yesterday and agreed that the implosion of World Trade Center Building 7 was clearly a case of controlled demolition -- but that the destruction of the Twin Towers might not have been!Ahahahahahahahahahaha!http://truthjihad.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/physics-prof-denis-rancourt-speaks-out.html Former professor, University of OttawaAhahahahahahaha! Yeah, former professor because you were fucking fired! Lol.GIVE ME A PEER-REVIEWED REFUTATION OF THE PAPER'S CONTENTS LIKE YOU WERE ASKED TO DO THREE DAYS AGO YOU HILARIOUS LITTLE CLIMATE-DENYING RETARD.