Is belief that a god exists a choice?

[talquin]

Actually, that's not correct logic. An inability to demonstrate X is true does not entail that one agrees that he or she can't demonstrate X is true. One might incorrectly believe that he or she has demonstrated X is true.

I will concede this point to you.

 

[Conscious Z]

A newborn baby would be taking the position of disbelief with respect to each claim.

Disbelief

noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

You are misusing "inability" here. Look a the example given on Google right below the definition you quoted: "Laura shook her head in disbelief"

"Inability" here means one cannot come to believe X because it simply does not seem true, not that one lacks the necessary faculties to undergo the process of belief formation.

If one is not rejecting theism in some way, one is not an atheist.

 

[bhsmte]

A newborn baby would be taking the position of disbelief with respect to each claim.

Disbelief

noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

How can a new born baby take a position on anything?

 

[Non sequitur]

A newborn baby would be taking the position of disbelief with respect to each claim.

Disbelief

noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

I always knew my cat and coffee table were atheists.

 

[talquin]

I always knew my cat and coffee table were atheists.

A´the`ist
n. 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. A godless person.

I'd wager that 'One' refers to a human.

 

[talquin]

You are misusing "inability" here. Look a the example given on Google right below the definition you quoted: "Laura shook her head in disbelief"

"Inability" here means one cannot come to believe X because it simply does not seem true, not that one lacks the necessary faculties to undergo the process of belief formation.

If one is not rejecting theism in some way, one is not an atheist.

Does a newborn baby possess the ability to believe a supreme being to exist? If it doesn't, would it follow that it has an inability to believe a supreme being exists?

 

[talquin]

You are misusing "inability" here. Look a the example given on Google right below the definition you quoted: "Laura shook her head in disbelief"

"Inability" here means one cannot come to believe X because it simply does not seem true, not that one lacks the necessary faculties to undergo the process of belief formation.

If one is not rejecting theism in some way, one is not an atheist.

Then what word would you use to describe one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists?

 

[TillICollapse]

It sounds like they have a hang up about the word and not the definition of the thing in question (which is what it's all about). However, if they believe this positive theistic-type claim, then they would not be an atheist.

If they don't believe this positive theistic-type claim and either accept or reject the word "god", they'd still be an atheist.

(I'm not sure if you mean believes in the "god" being defined and/or accepts that as a (new) definition for "god" or merely accepts that is someone's definition of "god".)

So it's possible for someone who claims to be an atheist, to actually not be an atheist if they believe at least one positive theistic-type claim, all the while claiming to be atheist ? (that claim involving at a minimum, a definition of something which the atheist believes in, which at least one other person is defining as "god", at a minimum).

Bad atheist! No

Bwahaha ...

Well, someone doesn't have to actively believe something before they can act irrationally about it. They can, but that's not a necessity.

Hmm ...

If there is a legitimate lack of belief... insecurities, bad emotional association, connotation, perceived social fallout, er... whatever reactionary reasons and excuses that effect people to be actively irrational.

How would one discern a "legitimate" lack of belief in a person ?

It also occurs to me that there is perhaps a grey area for some individuals who claim to be an atheist, but who do so for specific personal reasons that actually fuel their stance to something more akin to antitheism. Not that antitheism and atheism are mutually exclusive of course.

Anyways, thanks again for your responses. They were not wasted on me

 

[Conscious Z]

Does a newborn baby possess the ability to believe a supreme being to exist? If it doesn't, would it follow that it has an inability to believe a supreme being exists?

Again, you're misusing the word "inability." Look at the example in the very definition you quoted: "Laura shook her head in disbelief."

"Inability" as it's used in this definition refers to an epistemic agent being unable to reconcile given information with other propositions that are already accepted. In other words, it just doesn't seem true. It does NOT refer to an organism that doesn't even have the capacity to form beliefs.

Then what word would you use to describe one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists?

I don't think there is a word to describe the concept you've described.

 

[talquin]

Again, you're misusing the word "inability." Look at the example in the very definition you quoted: "Laura shook her head in disbelief."

"Inability" as it's used in this definition refers to an epistemic agent being unable to reconcile given information with other propositions that are already accepted. In other words, it just doesn't seem true. It does NOT refer to an organism that doesn't even have the capacity to form beliefs.

So you're saying if one lacks the ability to perform some action, they don't necessarily possess an inability to perform that action. Correct? If not 'inability', what word would you use to describe one's lack of ability to perform a particular action?

I don't think there is a word to describe the concept you've described.

How would you define a non-theist? Would you agree one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists is a non-theist?

 

[Non sequitur]

So it's possible for someone who claims to be an atheist, to actually not be an atheist if they believe at least one positive theistic-type claim, all the while claiming to be atheist ? (that claim involving at a minimum, a definition of something which the atheist believes in, which at least one other person is defining as "god", at a minimum).

Yes, on the question.
It's muddied, on the parenthesis clarification part.

If an atheist dilutes commonly used and understood terminology and definitions (the ghosts-god one), then I don't think he could honestly call himself one; sounds like having your cake and eating it, too.

How would one discern a "legitimate" lack of belief in a person ?

I suppose similar to the way one would discern a legitimate belief in a person.

Say if a Christian believed, solely based on reading the Bible, I would say it wasn't legitimate; using that logic, whatever religious book they read determined their belief. And I wouldn't call how they arrived at that as "legitimate".

It also occurs to me that there is perhaps a grey area for some individuals who claim to be an atheist, but who do so for specific personal reasons that actually fuel their stance to something more akin to antitheism. Not that antitheism and atheism are mutually exclusive of course.

Yup. Same as perhaps there are some individuals who claim to be Christians, but who do so for some personal reason that fuels something, as opposed to a "legitimate" reason to hold such beliefs.

Anyways, thanks again for your responses. They were not wasted on me

Sure thing.

Someone can call themselves a Christian and believe someone is saved through faith and/or works. And usually (while there is debate about it) you don't hear them saying to each other, "You're not a legitimate Christian." It's very pliable.

Most atheists I know are very critical of people calling themselves atheists who hold contradictory type claims.

One one sense, being an atheist could be seen as a harder and seemly untenable "belief" to hold, because of the simplicity of the essence of the "statement" and its arrived-at-conclusion baggage.

YEC - Christian
Evolution - Christian
Faith - Christian
Works - Christian
Hell - Christian

Spirit crystals - Atheist?
C'mon now...

 

[TillICollapse]

Yes, on the question.
It's muddied, on the parenthesis clarification part.

If an atheist dilutes commonly used and understood terminology and definitions (the ghosts-god one), then I don't think he could honestly call himself one; sounds like having your cake and eating it, too.

I suppose similar to the way one would discern a legitimate belief in a person.

Personally, I think "discerning legitimate belief" actually gets involved in True Scotsman territory. Even attempting to judge by actions, choices, statements, it's alluding to what beliefs may or may not be held by a person. It's still not directly letting you prove the "belief" is there. This is all assuming that a belief falls under the category, at a minimum, of a conscious mental construct of some sort.

I mean, James can say he loves Stacy, marries Stacy, remains faithful to Stacy for 10 years, claims he believes he loves her and wants to be with her. Then one day he wakes up, realizes it "was all a lie", changes his mind, "I never loved her," etc and so forth. Was the belief ever really there, or was denial in it's place instead ? So personally, I would say "discerning legitimate belief" is basically not objective.

Unless I'm attempting to delve deeper into the foundational reasoning behind someone's claim of being whatever-they-claim-themselves-to-be, if someone says they're an atheist, fine they're an atheist. Same with Christian or any other similar label. Even if the person is running around a statue of Godzilla saying, "Thou art a holy god !" and then in the next breath claiming to be an atheist ... whatever, if you say so lol I mean, I could probably try and dig deeper and reveal some cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty, but if they are convinced they identify with that, then that's their story and they're sticking to it. For whatever reason. Similar with the Christian.

Say if a Christian believed, solely based on reading the Bible, I would say it wasn't legitimate; using that logic, whatever religious book they read determined their belief. And I wouldn't call how they arrived at that as "legitimate".

I may not be getting what you're saying here in this paragraph. If you'd like to expound, cool ... if not, cool as well.

Most atheists I know are very critical of people calling themselves atheists who hold contradictory type claims.

I think identity is important to people, and those who take it seriously enough to attempt to classify themselves and/or draw a line in the sand, typically seem to take some kind of pride in wanting to make sure that those who bear the same title pass muster in their eyes. Political/religious/social affiliations, etc.

One one sense, being an atheist could be seen as a harder and seemly untenable "belief" to hold, because of the simplicity of the essence of the "statement" and its arrived-at-conclusion baggage.

YEC - Christian
Evolution - Christian
Faith - Christian
Works - Christian
Hell - Christian

Spirit crystals - Atheist?
C'mon now...

I would point out just now that your statement here suggest that being an atheist, in one sense, involved holding a belief, not the lack of having one ... which brings me back full circle somewhat to my original digging with my post in the first place.

Interestingly, I don't think it's so much the statement that the term "atheist" makes which has a lot of baggage, it's the way that conclusion is often arrived at which has the baggage. It is a rather simplistic statement, very reductionist ... but the implications are where the "baggage" is at. It reminds me very much of e=mc(2). I remember in calculus, one of my teachers gave me a problem which I began to work on, and it took me about 30 minutes to solve ... and when I had finally solved it, as I was writing out the solution, I realized I was writing out "e=mc(2)" and I got shivers down my spine. It was surreal The implications of how the concept of "atheism" is often arrived at, in a reductionist type of way, are somewhat similar to me.

Concerning atheists and spirit crystals lol ... dude I've known atheists who believe in a lot more than ghosts I know one who believes in a complicated and complex history involving spiritual entities that exist in another dimension alongside ours. What they didn't recognize or believe in, were deities and "gods" of any kind.

Something interesting I find amongst many atheists who start to tag on all these attributes that "true atheists" should have, and generalize, is that they tend to presume most atheists come to their conclusions and belief stances based on critical thinking and skeptical inquiry. "We atheists use critical thinking and science," etc and so forth. It's a pet peeve of mine somewhat when I see all these extra generalizations being poured onto "atheists" by atheists themselves that has nothing to do with the definition of atheist, and then those very atheists want to argue with me that all atheists fit a type of mold or stereotype. It's like arguing with believers. "We atheists think ______," and "We atheists believe ______" ... Atheists need only share one thing in common and one thing only, but try telling that to certain types of atheists lol ...

I will admit though, I have yet to meet an atheist who STILL believes in the power of crystals ...

 

[Conscious Z]

So you're saying if one lacks the ability to perform some action, they don't necessarily possess an inability to perform that action. Correct? If not 'inability', what word would you use to describe one's lack of ability to perform a particular action?

They don't possess an inability in the manner in which it was used in that definition. Again, look at the example given in the very definition you used on Google: "Laura shook her head in disbelief"

"Laura" does not have the same sort of inability that a newborn baby does.

How would you define a non-theist? Would you agree one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists is a non-theist?

I have no idea. That doesn't exactly seem relevant. I suppose non-theist might be a better descriptor.

Why is it even interesting or important to come up with a name that properly applies to a newborn baby? Will that give us some grand conclusion?

 

[talquin]

They don't possess an inability in the manner in which it was used in that definition. Again, look at the example given in the very definition you used on Google: "Laura shook her head in disbelief"

"Laura" does not have the same sort of inability that a newborn baby does.




I have no idea. That doesn't exactly seem relevant. I suppose non-theist might be a better descriptor.

Why is it even interesting or important to come up with a name that properly applies to a newborn baby? Will that give us some grand conclusion?

Would you then agree that a newborn baby is a non-theist?

Regardless of why one has an inability to perform an action, they still have an inability to perform the action. So if a newborn baby doesn't have the ability to believe a god exists, then they do have an inability to believe a god exists. If they don't have an inability to believe a god exists, then it would follow that they do have an ability to believe a god exists.

We can divide all humans into two categories:
1) Those who have the ability to believe a god exists
2) Those who don't have the ability (or have an inability) to believe a god exists.

Newborn babies would fall into category #2.

 

[Conscious Z]

Would you then agree that a newborn baby is a non-theist?

Regardless of why one has an inability to perform an action, they still have an inability to perform the action. So if a newborn baby doesn't have the ability to believe a god exists, then they do have an inability to believe a god exists. If they don't have an inability to believe a god exists, then it would follow that they do have an ability to believe a god exists.

We can divide all humans into two categories:
1) Those who have the ability to believe a god exists
2) Those who don't have the ability (or have an inability) to believe a god exists.

Newborn babies would fall into category #2.

I have no idea what "non-theist" means. It still doesn't make sense to me to talk about a creature with no belief-formation capabilities in terms of what it believes or doesn't believe.

Is my table a non-theist? My table and a baby have equal belief-formation capabilities. My table doesn't have the ability to believe in god. Why must this descriptor be limited to humans when there seems to be no key difference in this discussion between a baby and my table?

 

[Non sequitur]

Personally, I think "discerning legitimate belief" actually gets involved in True Scotsman territory. Even attempting to judge by actions, choices, statements, it's alluding to what beliefs may or may not be held by a person. It's still not directly letting you prove the "belief" is there. This is all assuming that a belief falls under the category, at a minimum, of a conscious mental construct of some sort.

I'm not aware of any inherent properties of a Scotsman, that cannot be falsified.

Well, I'm assuming a "legitimate belief" deals with logical consistencies with/and accepted generalized definitions. I would say anything that walks that line, or diverges from it, could be labeled as not legitimate.

If we follow the "what it means to me", there is no way of discerning "legitimate beliefs" from "not legitimate beliefs"... which means the only way of doing so is to see if it is sound (as described in the way above) by questions, questions, questions...

It just seems easier to work with existing basic concepts, as they are, when trying to get a general idea of something, before relabeling definitions and the common "essence" of the words.[/quote]

I mean, James can say he loves Stacy, marries Stacy, remains faithful to Stacy for 10 years, claims he believes he loves her and wants to be with her. Then one day he wakes up, realizes it "was all a lie", changes his mind, "I never loved her," etc and so forth. Was the belief ever really there, or was denial in it's place instead ? So personally, I would say "discerning legitimate belief" is basically not objective.

Usually, the belief was there, but it changed. Either by redefining love ("love should be..." is common) or that feeling doesn't exist any more.

Well, if he never had an intense feeling of deep affection, then I suppose he didn't love her. So, that sounds like rationalization for dealing with things, after the fact.

The legitimacy of love never came into question (assuming that's the point) until it was deemed important to do so (assuming that's a thing). If the pliability, multiple meanings and uses of love is equal to the pliability, multiple meanings and uses of a "god", then one should probably be more concerned with whether the number 3 ever feels sad, than "legitimate beliefs".

Unless I'm attempting to delve deeper into the foundational reasoning behind someone's claim of being whatever-they-claim-themselves-to-be, if someone says they're an atheist, fine they're an atheist. Same with Christian or any other similar label. Even if the person is running around a statue of Godzilla saying, "Thou art a holy god !" and then in the next breath claiming to be an atheist ... whatever, if you say so lol I mean, I could probably try and dig deeper and reveal some cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty, but if they are convinced they identify with that, then that's their story and they're sticking to it. For whatever reason. Similar with the Christian.

Agreed, and specifically the cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty part... which is at the root of the issue; why use the label that seems contradictory to its common definition.

I may not be getting what you're saying here in this paragraph. If you'd like to expound, cool ... if not, cool as well.

I'm assuming being a Christian entails a few things, other than calling yourself one. If the only thing that lead them to say they are one is from reading a book, and absolutely nothing else (no previous knowledge, desert island, etc.), it seems arbitrary, hollow and unfounded; simply reading a book should not be the benchmark for having a legitimate belief.

We should not give this person any comic books or let them watch Fox News.

(It was too easy not to say Fox News.)


I have to head to work. Will respond to the rest tonight.

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm not aware of any inherent properties of a Scotsman, that cannot be falsified.

Well, I'm assuming a "legitimate belief" deals with logical consistencies with/and accepted generalized definitions. I would say anything that walks that line, or diverges from it, could be labeled as not legitimate.

If we follow the "what it means to me", there is no way of discerning "legitimate beliefs" from "not legitimate beliefs"... which means the only way of doing so is to see if it is sound (as described in the way above) by questions, questions, questions...

It just seems easier to work with existing basic concepts, as they are, when trying to get a general idea of something, before relabeling definitions and the common "essence" of the words.



Usually, the belief was there, but it changed. Either by redefining love ("love should be..." is common) or that feeling doesn't exist any more.

Well, if he never had an intense feeling of deep affection, then I suppose he didn't love her. So, that sounds like rationalization for dealing with things, after the fact.

The legitimacy of love never came into question (assuming that's the point) until it was deemed important to do so (assuming that's a thing). If the pliability, multiple meanings and uses of love is equal to the pliability, multiple meanings and uses of a "god", then one should probably be more concerned with whether the number 3 ever feels sad, than "legitimate beliefs".

I don't know about 3's emotional state, but I'm guessing 9 is afraid of it's fate with 7.

In all seriousness, I'm reminded of synesthesia, and how someone may believe the number 3 could evoke an emotion, or actually be a specific color, based on their senses telling them thusly. Not to derail into the experience of synesthetes lol.

I'm assuming being a Christian entails a few things, other than calling yourself one. If the only thing that lead them to say they are one is from reading a book, and absolutely nothing else (no previous knowledge, desert island, etc.), it seems arbitrary, hollow and unfounded; simply reading a book should not be the benchmark for having a legitimate belief.

I see what you're saying now.

We should not give this person any comic books or let them watch Fox News.

(It was too easy not to say Fox News.)

I had to resists Fox News references in my previous posts in this thread, believe it or not

I have to head to work. Will respond to the rest tonight.

No worries, enjoy work (if possible) ...

 

[Non sequitur]

I would point out just now that your statement here suggest that being an atheist, in one sense, involved holding a belief, not the lack of having one ... which brings me back full circle somewhat to my original digging with my post in the first place.

If you are talking about me using the term "belief", it was merely my simplifying language, for conversation sake. (Nobody really wants to deal with the ah-ha-you-said-belief-nya-nya-nya followed by a long drawn out explanation.)

If you are talking about the atheist holding a belief in spirit crystals, I don't see what that has to do with lacking a belief in deities. He can hold any other position he wants.

Interestingly, I don't think it's so much the statement that the term "atheist" makes which has a lot of baggage, it's the way that conclusion is often arrived at which has the baggage.

I would have to disagree or say it's in (significant) reverse order.

Superficially: hates "God", no morals, wants to be unaccountable and your own "god", wants to destroy _______, evil, follower of Satan, has shallow meaningless life, etc. You know, the caricature of an atheist. That is the most (current) universal "statement" made.

There was an interesting idea floating around that an atheist should wear a shirt that says "Christian" and a Christian should wear a shirt that said "Atheist", for a week, and see how the other is treated.

If you tried this, I'd be willing to bet you'd see that the (socially perceived) statement far outweighs the way the conclusion was arrived... assuming you'd ever get to talk about that.

It is a rather simplistic statement, very reductionist ... but the implications are where the "baggage" is at. It reminds me very much of e=mc(2). I remember in calculus, one of my teachers gave me a problem which I began to work on, and it took me about 30 minutes to solve ... and when I had finally solved it, as I was writing out the solution, I realized I was writing out "e=mc(2)" and I got shivers down my spine. It was surreal The implications of how the concept of "atheism" is often arrived at, in a reductionist type of way, are somewhat similar to me.

Concerning atheists and spirit crystals lol ... dude I've known atheists who believe in a lot more than ghosts I know one who believes in a complicated and complex history involving spiritual entities that exist in another dimension alongside ours. What they didn't recognize or believe in, were deities and "gods" of any kind.

Totally within their right.

But, here's where it comes across as not that "legitimate".

If they arrived at the conclusion the evidence for deities is lacking or not sufficient... I don't understand what was not lacking in spiritual entities existing in another dimension alongside ours existing.

Did that make sense?

Something interesting I find amongst many atheists who start to tag on all these attributes that "true atheists" should have, and generalize, is that they tend to presume most atheists come to their conclusions and belief stances based on critical thinking and skeptical inquiry. "We atheists use critical thinking and science," etc and so forth. It's a pet peeve of mine somewhat when I see all these extra generalizations being poured onto "atheists" by atheists themselves that has nothing to do with the definition of atheist, and then those very atheists want to argue with me that all atheists fit a type of mold or stereotype. It's like arguing with believers. "We atheists think ______," and "We atheists believe ______" ... Atheists need only share one thing in common and one thing only, but try telling that to certain types of atheists lol ...

We'd like to believe that there's more to someone's atheism other than they weren't touched by an unexplainable feeling revealing the Truth.

I will admit though, I have yet to meet an atheist who STILL believes in the power of crystals ...

We (see what I did there?) will take it.

 

[TillICollapse]

If you are talking about me using the term "belief", it was merely my simplifying language, for conversation sake. (Nobody really wants to deal with the ah-ha-you-said-belief-nya-nya-nya followed by a long drawn out explanation.)

If you are talking about the atheist holding a belief in spirit crystals, I don't see what that has to do with lacking a belief in deities. He can hold any other position he wants.

Yes I was talking about you using the term belief in the context you did, not the spirit crystals. And no, I didn't hound upon it for a huge explanation, because catching people in ah-ha moments (legit or non) and exploiting them isn't typically my style. I don't typically need to jump up and down on someone in or out of context to prove something, or try and prove something, and it very rarely gets my jollies off. I tend to view people who try and corner people in those kind of ways as being weak, unfortunately. Plus, most people don't respond well to that type of cornering anyways, and I don't like having feces flung in my direction. Along those same lines, I loathe the "wink" icon after making a point for similar reasons.

I would have to disagree or say it's in (significant) reverse order.

Superficially: hates "God", no morals, wants to be unaccountable and your own "god", wants to destroy _______, evil, follower of Satan, has shallow meaningless life, etc. You know, the caricature of an atheist. That is the most (current) universal "statement" made.

There was an interesting idea floating around that an atheist should wear a shirt that says "Christian" and a Christian should wear a shirt that said "Atheist", for a week, and see how the other is treated.

If you tried this, I'd be willing to bet you'd see that the (socially perceived) statement far outweighs the way the conclusion was arrived... assuming you'd ever get to talk about that.

You know I totally missed the way you were using "baggage" in the context you were using it in that previous statement. I was viewing it as pertaining to the term itself (as in, what the term implied about the nature of the universe, existence, etc), not the person (as in, what it implies about the person). It makes more sense now, your previous statement.

Personally, I have no reason to wear a shirt with the title "atheist" on it in order to understand how it may feel. I get called all manner of things frequently enough and have all manner of things assumed about me. Atheist, demonic, Christian, prophet, false prophet, dangerous, deluded, angel, skeptic, etc. I have experienced some of the baggage that goes along with being labeled (by others) those terms.

But, here's where it comes across as not that "legitimate".

If they arrived at the conclusion the evidence for deities is lacking or not sufficient... I don't understand what was not lacking in spiritual entities existing in another dimension alongside ours existing.

Did that make sense?

Of course that makes sense

I know with the friends I've had, they all have directly experienced what they believe in. IOW, they have visibly seen what they believed to be ghosts, or visibly seen these other spiritual entities (little balls of light for example), both of which could communicate and had not-easily-explained-phenomena-in-context associated with them. Thus for them, they were witness to something that caused them to believe. Concerning deities, I know a few of them (the past friends I'm referencing) didn't believe because nothing they ever encountered CLAIMED to be a deity or a "god" in the communication. With some of the others, none of what they encountered fit the description of their preconceived concepts of what deities or gods should be, or the way others described them as.

I think the idea that, once a person believes they have seen something which has come out of Pandora's disputed box then EVERYTHING that was ever claimed to exist is suddenly fair game ... Bigfoot, aliens, gods, leprechauns, etc all have to possibly exist ... I think that idea is fallacious. Not everyone says to themselves, "Wow, if there is actually something to THIS right here, then what ELSE did I not believe in which may actually exist and have merit ? Is there a .... God ? " Not everyone is inquisitive, cares, thinks one must lead to the other, etc. So I can see why someone may believe in spirits but not gods for any variety of reasons, legitimacy "intact" I suppose. And of course, it's not always about evidence either (although with the atheists I've known who DID believe in other stuff, it's typically been because of something they believed they actually experienced directly and that was their circumstantial or anecdotal evidence).

We'd like to believe that there's more to someone's atheism other than they weren't touched by an unexplainable feeling revealing the Truth.

We (see what I did there?) will take it.

Yes I see what you did there, you did it twice in a row

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, you can not choose to believe anything.

The closest you can get is to profess belief in something that you don't actually believe.