I'd like to now ask about atheists and their lack of faith in religion. The fact they are so anti-religion shows something is not right. Religion is a man-made creation about spirituality. Since it is man-made it has value. To attack religion for its misuse by the people is like to attack science for pollution, destruction of the ozone layer, destroying wild-life, killing animals, killing humans and the ability to destroy the world through the use of nuclear technology yet we never hear anyone complain about science. Atheists may say they don't believe in a god or gods because they haven't seen the evidence but how hard have they looked? There is evidence and its in apologetic material. Lack of evidence doesn't mean you cannot have faith in a religion or gods. The only thing irrational is blind faith or the opposite: cynicism. A person can be justified in believing something without evidence if its reasonable. There are two definitions for faith which mean the same thing. The first definition of faith is trust or confidence in something. "This restores our faith in the politicians. The second definition is believing something without evidence. I don't think most atheists went and looked at all the evidence for evolution, the big bang and gravity to conclude those are facts. It is because they have FAITH in scientists and science that they believe it. You can't always ask for evidence for everything. If your friend tells you a story about themselves that they KNOW is true you can't go on asking for evidence for that. You trust the friend is telling the truth. I have faith in my doctors. There was no evidence the medicine could help me. My condition is different and my diagnosis is not sure. Even if this condition wasn't so special, there is still no evidence any medicine could help me. But I TRUSTED the doctors and took their medicine and eventually found the medicine that actually helped me. I have found honest politicians who ran for office and president who I trusted because of their record. There is no evidence they will be good politicians in office. But their record makes trust reasonable. Faith and reason must work together. It works beautifully when I think about or talk about reincarnation. Reincarnation both satisfies my faith and reason. Yes there is much evidence for reincarnation. I was justified in believing it. I KNOW reincarnation is true. Likewise I believe in the stories of religion and I have FAITH/TRUST/CONFIDENCE in them. I believe all Jews heard God speak in the year 1332 BC and told them the Torah that Moshe(Moses) wrote down. I trust Jesus is the Jewish messiah as the gospels have accuracy in them. It was proven that Jesus, John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, ruler Herod and Tiberius as written in the New Testament of the Bible existed. All serious scholars know they existed. So the Bible does have accuracies. The Christians believe in the Bible writers as first-hand witnesses of Jesus' life, death, ministry and resurrection. Muhammad is considered #1 most influential person in all of history. Muslims TRUST Muhammad had a revelation because he was trustworthy. The Buddhist TRUST Gautama Buddha had a revelation. The Buddha was a wealthy prince and married to a good woman and had a child or children. There is no reason for him to leave his comforts there to become a religious figure or even fail spiritually. He worked hard but he succeeded and his movement succeeded. The Buddha's story makes him TRUSTWORTHY. Likewise religious are about FAITH which is TRUST.
"Reasonable" means that such would stand up to, mentally healthy people, thinking that your thinking is reasonable.
"Faith" means that you cannot check your facts.
So, the debate sentence is flawed from the start.
If you would like to say that you "enjoy" having faith in religion, that would be more reasonable.
Since religion has changed, drastically, to suit each generation, then, religion
is not what it says that it was and is much more like a fashion of clothing or a style of music.
So, although humans are pack animals and seek to copy the rest of the group,
it is reasonable to not be ostracized and, therefore, follow a religion so that you
don't feel alone and rejected, it is not reasonable to think that an old man lives in the sky.
To just keep changing the words of "religion" every time you are shown that you are following pure nonsense
does not show "reasonableness".
Furthermore, if you are born in India, you are, most likely, to follow the Hindi religion.
If you are born in Saudi Arabia, you are, mostly likely to be Muslim.
If you are born in Mexico, you are, most likely to be Catholic.
Since the above is purely true, it makes any "reasonable faith"
not look like any decision at all.