I don't think anyone does "choose" to believe (or not to believe) in God. I don't believe in God, but not because I choose not to - I don't believe in him because it seems to me very unlikely that he exists. I have no control over the fact that it seems to me unlikely that God exists. I couldn't "choose" to start believing in God any more than I could "choose" to start believing in Father Christmas, no matter how much I might wish to. And similarly, I don't think that a person who does believe in God could just "choose" to stop believing in him.
One might choose to put faith and trust in God - or not to do so - just as one might choose to put faith and trust in another person. But that assumes that one already thinks that God exists, just as I can't choose whether to trust (say) a friend unless I think that that person exists. But whether or not I think that someone exists isn't a matter of my choice.
Do you choose to love another or it just happens? So you have no autonomy? The issue I see perpetually is people debate about God, fully knowing it's a concept that cannot be proven, so it's a pointless exercise.
The only valid way to elevate the discussion respecfully is to consider that since it's not a proveable concept, to consider that the logical quandry is a failure of definition. To me, this is about respect of belief systems: the belief system of the atheist and the belief system of the believer. The atheist is using faith but won't admit to it. The believer vainly thinks holy phrases from sacred texts are logical arguments when those texts are disputed by the nonbeliever. Both simply have faith or lack of faith.
We chose to believe all manner of things for we have affinity for them. That's for ideas and for relationships.
There's no juice in engaging in a pointless unprovable exercise on an Internet forum, but to engage with someone, contend as Jacob wrestles with the angel, that's a noble human endeavor to hone our intellect. It's a mistake to transform that into something like belief, which is really a relational and not logical process. You don't love your wife out of logic. It's a choice to relationally enter into a covenant, just as friendship is a similar model. Belief in God, or deciding the god doesn't exist is precisely the same thing. It's about afinity and what the heart says, not the mind.
If enlightened, and not merely justifying our relationships, then we don't blindly profess a belief in say liberal Democratic ideas but instead integrate our mind, heart, and spirit such that belief (heart) and mind (brain) are integrated into soul (spirit).
One can say, "I didn't choose to believe in God, it was self-evident..." or something like that, but that's not really true of relationships, is it? For a believer, an idea takes on a life, and whether you agree or disagree with that, whether this idea is a political, spritual, or romantic one, it's the same.
Enlightened debate is not about proving or disproving ideas. That's a misnomer. These great ideas can't be proven. It's a futile endeavor. The joy is in understanding the Other and in honing our own beliefs in that process.
And the capitalization of God/decapitalization of god is rather unimaginitive monotonous droning chant to dispel the other without any effort. It's an impotent action. We're not debating about god. If God is only a god, then it doesn't matter. If all power itself is nothing more than a human construct, why bother discussing it? It has no importance anymore or power.
No the debate is about God as a valid idea that exists in reality as well as the history of that idea of BEING.
Say you take the tack that you're powerless to enter into a relationship with God, for to you it's nothing more than the Easter Bunny or flying spagetti monster. That's actually nonsensical and an abuse of the rule of debate by invoking the Appeal to Ridicule. It's a sign of a defeat to make such appeals. It's also ignoring the topic by converting it from a discussion of God to a discussion of god. It's rather like instead of discussing Ethics you switch the topic to a reality tv show. In addition, you're violating the argumentum ad lapidem, the appeal to the stone, by assuming an idea is absurd without proving it's absurd. Honestly, why can't atheists do more in a debate than make a whole series of fallacies?