Why is it it is the believer who drowns? Everyone believes. The person who swims in a sea of doubt and uncertainty believes nothing is sure enough to believe in — a conclusion which generates its own beliefs.

Your conclusion suggests you do not believe in grand overarching ideas. Like Nietzsche then, you do not see enough consistency to believe in well defined structures such as Christianity. Given this belief underlies your discourse, you also do believe in something.

In my opinion, belief always must be grounded in evidence not philosophy. When belief is grounded in evidence, it may be flawed but never can be abstraction from reality, as such cannot lead to drowning. Granted belief that does not demand evidence of itself as rationale for belief can lead to drowning. But are we to assume belief never is grounded in evidence or demand belief demonstrate why it believes?