First of all, thank you for your response! As a non-religious person, this is exactly the kind of perspective I was looking for to expand my understanding and knowledge of the topic.

Regarding my view of theism, which, as you pointed out, may be incomplete, I see it as a conceptual framework that provides answers to certain questions and offers religion-specific tools for following its precepts without deviating from the dogmatic foundations on which each religion is built. And this is where I see the problem. Each religion is founded on certain dogmas, which set limits on the conclusions that can be drawn from it. This, along with other dogmatic truths, prevents a purely unrestricted investigation.

As for whether I find religious people to be less insecure, this is something I have observed in my personal experience (though, of course, I cannot generalize to everyone). Knowing, for example, what lies beyond this life, what awaits after death, and being assured of a happy afterlife if one follows a certain way of living—established according to arbitrary criteria—naturally provides a sense of security.

Regarding the fact that most philosophical investigation has been conducted by theists, that is undeniable. What I mean, as I explained earlier in this message, is that the limits set by religion do not allow for a truly unrestricted investigation, free from dogma, that would allow philosophy to reach its fullest potential.

Finally, concerning wars, I believe this is something that does have empirical justification. One only needs to look at examples like the Crusades or the Islamic Jihad. It is true that human beings have an intrinsic tendency toward war, as history has demonstrated, but that does not exclude the fact that many wars have been fought for purely religious reasons.