> But I'd sooner think this is more simply a result of human nature than anything else.

*shrug* Your explanation fits, but "I'd sooner" go the other way and say that we have a widespread need to worship God (or appease God, as you say, which actually makes more sense to me for those not already in line with God's will) because we were made for the purpose of a relationship with God. This is one of those fascinating elements of human nature that is useful in many lines of thought, but I don't think it suggests one way or the other on a "does God exist?" debate (which I still do not feel this thread is about, but never mind).

Ditto what you say about different religions reflecting the values of the cultures that tend to follow them. This is sociologically interesting but doesn't lead me to any particular conclusions one way or the other about the truth of God.

But I do acknowledge that many people shape their religions (or the lack thereof, really) to suit their own values. Some religious people subscribe to a particular religion because it fits their moral views; some even refine the religion on their own to make it conform. Other religious people subscribe to a particular religion (or in some cases *many* religions as a catch-all) to stave off fears or insecurities. Meanwhile, some atheists, as LaZorra said, are atheists because they resent the idea of a power above them. Christianity is frequently rejected out of pride: accepting it means that not only are you a sinner but you are incapable of redemption by your own power.

What is interesting about Christianity is that it is arguably *most* "personalized" of any major religion today, and yet, at its core, it should be among the least malleable. Three reasons:

One, it's got a textbook which calls itself the infallible word of God. It's got published rules. It's a lot easier to accept all of it or dismiss the whole thing as a human invention than it is to accept only part of it as the divinely-inspired message of God to humanity. People do it, some with elaborate reasoning, but a religion without any textbook at all would be easier to manipulate. Even among other religions with textbooks, it stands out: the Quran, for example, uses much less specific language that leaves it more open to interpretation.

Two, when Christ first started preaching, his message was not well received. Never mind the governments that persecuted and martyred the early disciples, who would have spared themselves plenty just by "refining" their religion a bit -- even the actual *apostles*, in some cases, were resistant. In particular, Paul gave up a wealthy position in society to convert to Christianity. This was not a religion sprung harmoniously from a culture, nor from individuals seeking to fashion a religion suited for the comfort or convenience of their lives.

Three, Christianity is based, as its root, not on philosophies (inherently easy to customize, refine, and extend) but on the belief that specific events actually occurred: that Jesus Christ was crucified and rose from the dead. If one *is* to believe that Christ claimed to be God, then proved it by *rising from the dead*, it must certainly take an awful lot of logistical acrobatics not to ultimately conclude that Christ's teachings are divine, perfect, and authoritative in their entirety.

Therefore, again, I find Christianity to be less likely than most religions to have arisen and been fashioned according to human desire, and in any case inherently non-malleable after the fact. Yet, paradoxically, Christianity is "customized" all the time. What I think that implies is something I think about a lot and have come to some conclusions about, but I won't get into that now.

Switching gears just slightly, knivetsil, I hear what you're suggesting about people subscribing to religions because it is comfortable to do so. But logically speaking, this is not *evidence* in the truth or falsehood of God: it's merely a suspected consequence of a supposition about that. And like LaZorra says, though I would fully admit that some people actually *do* subscribe to a religion (or atheism!) because they find a particular belief comforting to hold, there are certainly plenty of cases of people believing in Christianity against their own comfort, sometimes even against their own judgment. Remember, when the early apostles discovered Jesus was going to be crucified, that news was met with dumbfounded incredulity. Humanly, they just didn't see how that could be right, though they had faith all the same.

Personally, I experience the same thing, namely that my faith is not always immediately comforting. There is no replacement or temperance for the joy and peace I have in my relationship with God. That much I can say for sure. It's a peace that surpasses anything I know any other way. Yet I often consider just how much easier and comfortable it would be if I could tweak things just a bit. The thought of people I know and love in hell scares the living daylights out of me, and stirs an anguish I just would not have if I would only disbelieve that it existed, or that anybody except "bad people" would actually go there. I'm not immediately sure that the Christian view of the afterlife is necessarily more comforting -- from a human perspective -- than simple oblivion. It takes all the faith I have that God is loving, just, and righteous to come to uneasy terms with this. If I had fashioned my beliefs according to my own self-interest, these are not the beliefs I would have. I hold my beliefs because I believe that's the way things really are. I don't think I'm that unusual in that regard.