A rational man starting without preconceived notions would soon believe in the natural world he inhabits. Whether or not he concludes there is an unseen world, he can see that the natural world's existence is indisputable; he can see that the natural world operates by laws that have applied for time out of mind without exception; he can see that claims about exceptions to those natural laws, religious or otherwise, evaporate under the light of close scrutiny. He can see no ready evidence for any other, unseen world. He considers the above, and posits that there is no world but the natural one, and science is its handmaiden. He has observed clearly and reasoned well to determine that "it's only natural" is a strong, evidence-based theory.
You, however, in the same world and with the same evidence, conclude there is also an unseen world. You have not seen it; you have no evidence for its existence. Indeed, you insist on the importance of maintaining this belief (faith) in the absence of evidence.
Following up on my previous post:
There are those who will offer to sell folks "eternal life" with no evidence whatsoever that they can provide it, and -- given the alternative -- there are a lot of folks willing to buy into that notion.
It is certainly the oldest con game in history.
But that con has provided a living for shamans for a couple of hundred thousand years, and shows no sign of yielding to rationalism no matter how many advances science makes.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
(1)