naomi - // AH, I think I've explained well enough but since you're still struggling I'll try again. If someone is afraid not to believe, they are, in my opinion, emotionally frail.
As for your 'premise', most adults believe because they've been taught to believe - and even if they question that in later life very often a sneaking suspicion of its validity lingers. When adults 'choose' to believe I ask why? To believe in something for which no proof - or even evidence - exists is not logical. Therefore there must be a reason people make that choice and that reason is, in my opinion, the dangled carrot of the opportunity to cheat death - but moreover the evil notion that sin is innate within every human being, and the dread of the assured punishment for indulging that awaits after death. Most adults believe because they've been taught to believe - and even if they have their doubts in later life, very often the ominous prospect of punishment remains. Religion is not the choice of the rational mind. It is the choice of the emotionally frail. //
It's not that I don't understand your notion of being 'emotionally frail' - it's that I don;t understand what on earth 'emotional frailty' has to do with my point.
My point is to refute your argument about Santa Claus.
As I pointed out, children believe in Santa Claus because they lack the mental capacity to question it, as do children told about God.
My point is, that when a mind reaches a level where it can reason, it will reject the concept of Santa, obviously, and in a lot of cases, it will reject religion as well, using exactly the same processes or thought and reasoning.
Your extensive diatribe about reasons why people believe in religion - 'emotional frailty' are entirely a separate issue, and have nothing whatsoever to do with accepted belief in childhood leading to rejected belief in adulthood.
I pointed out that it was invalid at the time, and all you have done is bring up a parallel point about reasons for belief, which are not involved in my point, and then patronised me for 'not understanding'.
I do understand what you said, but I repeat, it does nothing to address my original point.