I tend to agree with you. I think that our beliefs are a set of inescapable conclusions we draw about the world based on our upbringing, disposition and life experience. For example, I was raised Christian, but I found very early on in life that I thought the whole thing was silly. I can't say that I 'chose' that line of thinking, but rather, that I arrived at it after reflecting on the teachings I had received in Sunday School. I don't think the difference is purely semantic. I think it's conceptual. If each of us simply chose what to believe, I think our beliefs would be disingenuous.
Isn't the only good reason for holding a belief the fact that it is true? And one decides that something is true or false by collecting and evaluating evidence. I can think of no better description than "inescapable conclusions" -- though the conclusions are held tentatively, subject to future contradiction. My examples were intentionally concrete and pragmatic, but I don't see why the principle wouldn't apply to a belief like "love is better than anger." There's a wonderful story about Niels Bohr, which like so many stories probably isn't true. A friend visited the great physicist at his home in Tisvilde, and was astonished to see a horseshoe nailed over the door. Asked if he really thought such a talisman would bring good luck, Bohr replied "Of course not, but I am told it works even if you don't believe in it."If each of us simply chose what to believe...
I want to believe (despite contrary evidence ) that this hypothetical is not even possible. On what basis could someone "simply choose" what to believe? Because it made them feel good about the world? Because they believe that belief in X will bring them a better future? So then, if another belief comes along, making even greater promises, it's time to upgrade. And how does the thinking get off the ground? "I choose to believe this, because I believe that by believing this...."