Making rules and definitions is hard.  You have to make them broad enough to given them proper meaning, but narrow enough scope to have a use.  For example, what is an airplane?  Well, saying something that has two wings, a rudder a pilot and co-pilot and a rudder would be too inclusive and disqualify biplanes.  If we say, a flying machine to carry humans, that would include blimps.  You have to get it just right.

Words are also often shaped by our use of them, even if we don't mean to specifically redefine the word.  For example, if we say that a movie is entertaining because it makes us cry, it blurs the line of what entertainment is to the point that it's hard to use it for anything.  Another example would be if we were to say that Superman 64 is not a bad game.  If that's not bad, well, what exactly is?

So, I now pose my question: If believing in a religion--at least the abrahamic religions--does not qualify as insane or at least ridiculous, what does?  This is not a mockery, it's a serious question for evaluation.  By all means, the claims made about miracles in any other scope other than religious would immediately be regarded as delusional behaviour.

There is a fair option, though.  Extraordinary claims are not absolutely always false, but we most certainly cannot accept them on faith.  What is required is justification -- evidence.  All a religion need do is provide adaquate evidence of the claims made.  By all means, that's not an unfair request.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

If you are willing to accept that statement, most certainly you can accept mine.