Is faith an answer to an problem nonbelievers don't perceive?

[HerCrazierHalf]

I am puzzled by the OP.
I don’t post on Sasquatch-sighting forums that it doesn’t matter to me whether or not reports concerning the elusive creature are valid and verifiable.
So, I can’t comprehend what would motivate a person whose life poses no big problem, to post here other than to troll.

Imagine that one day you come to realize that sighting Sasquatch was an integral part of the life of nearly everyone in your town. So much so that it affects how they live and interact with those whom haven’t sighted it?
Wouldn’t you find it incredibly curious even if you never had a sighting?

 

[Aloysium]

Imagine that one day you come to realize that sighting Sasquatch was an integral part of the life of nearly everyone in your town. So much so that it affects how they live and interact with those whom haven’t sighted it?
Wouldn’t you find it incredibly curious even if you never had a sighting?

Not if I had spent my life playing video games in the basement.

 

[IWantGod]

The back and forth between Christians and agnostics/atheist here has left me with an odd query.

Is a belief in God an answer to something that many agnostics\atheists do not view as a big problem?

I see numerous Catholics propose that God as a plausible solution to issues that don’t strike me as a major problem. For example, the issue of meaning and purpose. Several conversion stories (Jennifer Fulwiler, etc), include meaning as a major motivator. However, meaning for me is internally derived. The lack of a meaning that exist beyond my lifespan isn’t a problem in need of solution.

If reality has no real meaning then the so called meaning you internally derive is a fantasy.

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly:
The poster boy for MAD Magazine seems to express atheism’s attitude toward the tension that moves Christians to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phillipians 2:12). The “What, me worry?” quote may well have expressed the magazine editors atheist bent.

Which camp, atheism or Catholicism, better reflects human nature? Is the “unsatisfied pig” a Catholic invention? Hardly. The ancients knew they needed something more than the animals to satisfy their longing for salvation.

All animate objects seek salvation, a contented co-existence with their environment consistent with the plan of their Creator. The non-human animal, the “satisfied pig,” is content if its physiological needs—its hunger, thirst and its sexual needs—are satisfied. But in time the itch returns and the “unsatisfied pig” needs another scratch. Does the “satisfied pig” know that his satisfaction is so ephemeral? I don’t think so.

Since humans are animals, they also have these needs and seek to satisfy them. But, inasmuch as they are human, the satisfaction of these instinctual needs is not sufficient to make them content; they are not even sufficient to make them sane. The knowledge that these instinctual satisfactions are transitory somewhat diminishes not only the immediate contentment but eliminates the idea that any permanent contentment in them is possible. Something more is needed.

Born into this world at a time and place not of their choosing, humans realize they will leave in much the same manner. The animal “is lived” through the biological laws of nature and is in harmony with the world, never needing to transcend it. Humans, “life aware of itself”, know themselves to be in the world but not of the world; partly divine, partly animal; partly infinite, partly finite. The human animal seeks for something outside this world and his contentment depends on relating to it. Nothing else will do.

St. Augustine’s perceptive prayer captures the human condition:
You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you.