On some of the other forum sites, I occasionally posted forums looking for what religionists considered were reasons for belief. The majority of "reasons" were emotionally based. People spoke of an "emptiness" or "meaningless feeling" that they felt could only be assuaged through religion. OK, fine, but that's not a reason, it's a motivation. Sometimes I pressed further, looking for a logical thought pattern, but never got anywhere, oftentimes folks got offended. I even had one forumist tell me, "my faith is not an equation, have a nice day". Religious faith requires accepting caveats in what is the percieved nature of reality. Religion invovles believeing in something called the"supernatural", that is events, beings and actions that suspend the laws of physics for some devine purpose. Some defend this belief system by infusing philosophy, citing such examples as Kant and other lines of thought that challenge what we percieve as reality , but still at the end of the day we're left right back at Square One. No one has yet provided a logical reason why what we percieve with our senses as reality should be challenged. Right now there is a water glass beside my laptop. I percieve it as "real" because not only can I pick it up, drink water out of it or even smash it against a wall if I wish, but I could ship it anywhere in the world and someone else could experience the water glass the same way I did, therefore the water glass is "real". Religion requires that one suspend what they percieve as reality to take on a twilight zone world of angels, demons, miracles, afterlives, talking animals and such to fully embrace it. This is the same mechanics the movie industry has used since it's inception. You must suspend your disbelief for a couple of hours in order to enjoy a movie. For two hours you can safely believe that Superman can fly or Captain Kirk is saving the universe from Klingons, but when the credits roll, the picture fades to black and the lights come on, you go back to your mundane world where the laws of physics are never violated. The difference in religion is that there are no ending credits and the believer must still suspend his sense of doubt. This is what religionists call "faith". Is there a good reason to believe that what we precieve as reality is not right? Is there a good reason to ever believe that gravity can be defied, that animals that possess niether vocal chords or a brain advanced enough for verbal communication can talk or that the dead can rise? Other than an emotional belief that without these things, life would be boring, I see no other motivation. Religionists eschew this line of thought purely on emotional reasons. Not that such is particularly a bad thing, for we all base many decisions on emotional needs and wants with absolutely no thought for logic and reason. We eat food that we know will agravate certain digestive problems, but because they're soooo good, so sometimes we endure the pain and discomfort anyway. I have a good friend that suffers severe gout and I can always tell when he eats shellfish because the next day, he's limping due to his swollen feet. He always just shrugs his shoulders when someone tells him the obvious saying, "but I love shrimp". It's only when people INSIST that emotional comfort trumps what the laws of physics tell us that I get concerned.Call me obtuse, but I see no difference in what religion tells me is "reality" and the voices in a schizophrenic's head or the visions a person under the influence of a hallucinogen has.