Why would anyone be religious?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The strongest rational reason I can give for not being a soulless atheist is that if the premise were true, then people would be nothing more than clumps of biochemicals seeking to self-replicate.  That is not an appealing notion, so even if being a theist were delusional, it is a delusion that makes biochemical clumps happier and more likely to self-replicate. As Voltaire put it: «Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer» (“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The strongest rational reason I can give for not being a soulless atheist is that if the premise were true, then people would be nothing more than clumps of biochemicals seeking to self-replicate.  That is not an appealing notion, so even if being a theist were delusional, it is a delusion that makes biochemical clumps happier and more likely to self-replicate. As Voltaire put it: «Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer» (“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”).

As someone who recognizes that I'm likely only a physical being, that recognition in no way makes me in any less happy or less wanting to have kids. If anything the notion that "I" will only exist as long as my physical body holds out makes me value what time I have here on this Earth and with the people I care about even more, because it becomes infinitely more valuable. One could say that the notion of eternity cheapens every moment you spend with them.

If one defines 'soul' as that force that gives a being the ability to make choices that are not predetermined by one's biochemistry, then yes I desire one.

However, the argument I presented does not depend upon a desire for an eternal soul as you have presumed.  Rather it depends upon wanting to be something more than a biochemical android operating under a delusion that I have self-actualization when instead, everything I do is a predestined result of my programming interacting with an environment I merely believe to have some degree of influence upon. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

(Apparently in his school, there are Apple Books and Orange Books.  Apples being fruits that you have to eat in one sitting, starting from the outside and going sequentially toward the core.  Oranges, so long as you peel them, can be taken one wedge at a time, and in any order, and the wedges will keep, unpeeled, for quite a long time without oxidizing, so you don't have to eat it in one sitting.  When I probed more deeply, I found that this is how his school discriminates between fiction books, which must be read chapter to chapter, in order, and non-fiction books, which may be referenced and order isn't important.)

You know, I find that division of books into apples and oranges to be quite charming.  That would make an anthology of short stories or poems an orange book unless the individual items were laid out in some sort of thematic order or were part of a shared continuity. So it isn't a strict fiction/non-fiction correspondence.

However wouldn't Banana Book be a better term for an Apple Book?  There isn't any reason you can't take a bite from one side of an apple and then take the next bite from the other side.  However, a banana needs to be eaten in a linear sequential order.