#8 Ben: Thanks for your response.

In essence i disagree with your implication that religious people's reasoning is always illogical/unreasonable, and that athiests don't have to rely on faith - which i think was the core of your 4th paragraph (sorry this is a fairly long response).

I'll demonstrate with some of my own beliefs (which if you still think are non-logic i'd be interested to hear where you think my logic is flawed):

I share that belief that "God exists", however I don't consider "God exists" to be one of my core beliefs, it is logically derived from several logical arguments, one of which is based on my belief that "The bible says God exists" and "The bible is entirely truthful".
I don't think anybody would seriously argue the bible didn't say God exists, so why do I believe that the bible is truthful? This could be considered a core belief of mine, I cannot prove that the bible is truthful, however it exhibits all the characteristics one would expect from a non-fictional work of truth, and none of the characteristics one would expect from a non-truthful work - which makes this belief not unreasonable. It is entirely self consistent, and consistent with what I observe of the universe (dispite what others may try to claim to the contrary). I do not believe that if the Bible was not inspired by God (i.e. if it came entirely from man) that it could have such a level of consistency.
One of my other logical arguments for the existence of God is based on what I know of information theory. There is clearly a massive amount of information in human DNA, however nobody has ever been able to explain how information can be increased without intelligence (evolution for example is unable to explain an increase in genetic information). If you think about the past, mandkind's genetic information can only have decreased as time passes. My core belief that it must have come from somewhere (which I also think is a reasonable belief) implies that something that always existed must have created us in the first place.

I strongly disagree that "an athiest has no belief but logic, relying on what is proven to them by logic and demonstration". Athiests can no more back up their belief that God does not exist than theists can back up their belief that God does exist, although I'd argue that to be an athiest takes a much greater leap of faith than to be a theist - its just much more socially acceptable and hence "easier".
I'll end with a quote from the (non-creationist) information theorist Hubert Yockey observed over 30 years ago (who hasn't changed his opinion since):

‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.
One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.’