In another post Sklansky talked about wanting people to admit that their belief was primarily or wholly based on faith and not reason.
I would take this a step further and say that I don't understand someone accepting a religion on "faith."
The only Believers that make sense to me are those who claim to have had a religious or ecstatic experience of some sort. Those who have had a direct experience of god, although probably clinicaly insane, have a far better grasp on their religion than those who simply accept a teaching, use "reason", or say they just have "faith."
Unless that faith comes with a direct experience of god, I think none of these people have a leg to stand on.
As far as determining what constitutes an experience of god, if you have to ask, you didn't have one. Or at least not one that suits the purpose of this thread.

g