Part of the issue here seems to be that people aren’t accepting the exlusivity of myriad religious beliefs - which there are; check religioustolerance.org - or they’re paying lip-service to accepting them, but actually overlaying their own religion’s interpretation onto others’ beliefs.
If you interpret Tangaroa as a “djinn or devil” - well, that’s a Judaeo/Christian/Muslim way of looking at things. To the Polynesian believer, he is a fully fledged god, son of the earth goddess, no question.
I think most religious believers would tell you they do have reasons for believing in their religion. “Reason” is a pretty broad term – it doesn’t have to mean “scientific evidence.”
Consider this hypothetical example:
I believe religion X is the one true faith. I believe this because I have a gut feeling that this religion is right.
You say: You have no more reason to believe that religion than any other religion. (Basically a paraphrase of the quotation in question.)
I say: Bull. I believe this religion because I have a gut feeling that it’s right. I don’t believe those other religions, because I don’t have a gut feeling that they’re right.
So basically the above quotation boils down to saying either “I don’t believe you have any reason for believing in your religion” – which is demonstrably false – or “I don’t believe the reasons you have for believing in your religion are any good” – which may be true, but doesn’t really constitute much of an argument in and of itself.
If you’re trying to convince someone to be an atheist, it makes more sense to ask “Why do you believe in your religion?” and then argue against those specific reasons.