Are theists by nature simply insecure?

[Edwardo Piet]

I, myself - know nothing that "Belief" (religious belief) can give you other than the placebo effect....I know of no evidence for anything further than the placebo effect, I consider such beliefs - obviously - to be delusions, to be false.

Although perhaps if you genuinely "Believe", you are more likely to not be thought of a fraud if you're a theologist or something to that effect, than if you were just pretending, and were indeed, a fraud. And you can therefore - perhaps - more likely benefit from the financial advantages, lol.

Just to go scraping at the bottom of the barrel for perhaps any mildly benefical practical advantages of "Belief" - this doesn't apply to all "Belief" though (if it indeed applies at all).

EvF

[fr0d0]

I think you address the weak theist who takes on theism with no real reasoning Darwinian. Then the accusations begin to apply. Maybe you could say the same about weak atheism. Or just plain lack of interest.

Working it out on your own has to be inherently uncomfortable resulting in a greater self confidence I think.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah...I always find it funny that, if there's no afterlife, you guys will never know either! Haha!

You're right about the discomfort when thinking of a problem through on your own. In my case it's not about God now, but about things in philosophy like consciousness and free will. The constant discomfort of thinking, thinking, thinking, on your own. I experience that......but - it's gotten to the point that it's 24/7 and luckily for me: I've actually got used to it, and I enjoy it now!! It's awesome now. And it's all been worth it - I love puzzles.

EvF

[Pippy]

Why does there have to be a reason why? Nothing specifies that is necessary and the fact that you apparently feel such a need speaks more to your insecurity than anything else so we're back to the idea of a comfort blanket.

There doesn't have to be a why. I said that there may well not be a why, but if there is, it could be god. Never said there needed to be a why. I don't feel a need for a why. There just might objectively be one. And there might not.

Thanks,
-Pip

[Minimalist]

The majority of theists do not think about it at all. They are born into a particular faith and that is all they know.

Being "theirs" they assume that they are right and all the other people in the world are just assholes who can't see the truth.

Sometimes we atheists tend to over-engineer what the opposition is all about. Many of them are simply lazy.

[fr0d0]

As Christianity is a personal choice it's logically impossible to be "born into it" but I know exactly what you mean. These are the worst of all as they regurgitate what they've heard without understanding what they're saying, in my experience. Nothing worse. Kill them all I say

[Kyuuketsuki]

Why does there have to be a reason why? Nothing specifies that is necessary and the fact that you apparently feel such a need speaks more to your insecurity than anything else so we're back to the idea of a comfort blanket.

There doesn't have to be a why. I said that there may well not be a why, but if there is, it could be god. Never said there needed to be a why. I don't feel a need for a why. There just might objectively be one. And there might not.

Then the fact that you believe without evidence implies you are insecure!

Kyu

---

As Christianity is a personal choice it's logically impossible to be "born into it" but I know exactly what you mean.

Bollocks!

Kyu

[Pippy]

But there is evidence that there may be a why. And evidence that there may be no why at all. So the choice to believe is not for lack of evidence... Just deciding what evidence feels or seems most true, most rational. I assure there is evidence I hold dear about my personal view of god, but I know it would come across as so much nonsense, so I maintain my inability to provide evidence of god in this capacity. I assume you all have evidence that to you proves the lack of god. I'm sure some of it would not make sense to me, would not appear to be evidence at all. So that is the crossroad I feel we are standing on.

I don't like to hear my personal beliefs described as a weakness, or some result of insecurity. I can see those manifestations in some believers, but not in myself. I am very thorough in my knowledge of myself, that's why I don't give too much credence when you try to tell me who I am. I don't live in a reality that has much room at all for weakness or insecurity, and my god also is not a manifestation of such. I understand the no-god theory, and its long term implications, and have come to accept it's possibility. But what I believe to be true is different than that certain idea.

I am just trying to say that as a modern "spiritualist" (in the sense that I am not religious, but a theist) I really don't feel that my belief is based on fear or worry. If it was I would drop it as obviously unhealthy. You can assure me that I am like you say I must be, but I politely disagree.

Thank you,
-Pip

[fr0d0]

As Christianity is a personal choice it's logically impossible to be "born into it" but I know exactly what you mean.

Bollocks!

Kyu

Actual fact I'll think you'll find.

[Tiberius]

I agree with what fr0d0 is saying to some degree. A newborn baby of Christian parents is not a "Christian", it is a de-facto atheist. However given that most (if not all) children take on the religion of their parents, one could say that someone born into a Christian family is "born into" Christianity. It is a personal choice to believe, but that choice may have been forced / persuaded by the family environment the child grew up in.