When I started this thread a couple of weeks ago, I was genuinely interested in hearing from a global audience whether there was any real basis for religious "faith" which had always seemed to me to be no more than belief in the absence of evidence.
Although I am not religious (in the accepted sense)I can recognize that religion does bring much happiness to people who might otherwise be quite miserable.
My dilemma was that if "faith" is paramount in attaining the levels of happiness claimed by adherents of various religions, why does the concept of "faith" appear no more than self-satisfying nonsense to me?
After reading the various posts to this thread, I am drawn to the conclusion that we are here dabbling in something that we simply do not have the mental ability to decifer. It is beyond our capabilities.
However, being confronted with something which we cannot understand has not in the past prevented us humans from drawing a conclusion. In general conclusions drawn under these circumstances have been suitably adorned to make them conveniently appeasing to ourselves. I think the best example of this was the belief, up to 400 years ago, that the earth was the center of the universe.
Therefore, as we cannot understand the topic, we are at liberty to draw whatever conclusion is most convenient to ourselves knowing that nobody can offer any verifiable contradiction to our position.
Nevertheless, I can see no other reasonable conclusion but that "faith" in a caring deity who is waiting to welcome us into paradise after death is just more self-glorifying rubbish.

I am, however, mindful of Blaise Pascals contention that while there is doubt about the existence of God, it is better to believe than not to believe. His reason was that if you don't believe and it turns out that you were wrong, you're going to be in deep trouble whereas if you believe and you were wrong there is no consequence.
Problem is that I don't really have any control over what I believe.