Theists believe in God for many reasons but the best reason is communion with God. — EnPassant

I can't argue without asking: What do you mean by 'best'? It seems to be the least reliable, the least amenable to interrogation, the least presentable and the least-strong in terms of any logical deduction. It can be explained in many ways besides an actual communion with a hypothetical God.

So what do you mean by 'best'?

Why anyone be unable to commune with God? — EnPassant

Well, God doesn't appear to exist for one - but you're also simply ignoring the argument. It doesn't matter why. The concept is that if people are unable to, you've said you wouldn't use the term defective - so, what is it - everyone can commune with God, or that God choose who to commune with arbitrarily?

I am not talking about medical issues I'm talking about abuse of these substances. The damage they do is well documented. — EnPassant

Psychedelics cause the least amount of damage along any axis of known, reported drug use metrics. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug

Popular reporting, to be sure, but hte sources are reported statistical realities. I understand being resistant due to being ill-informed, but you are wrong on this count. Paddle boats do more damage.

What do you mean by 'best'? — AmadeusD

There are many levels of faith. Some have an intuitive sense of God, some have deeper faith and enter religious life, some become mystics and have a deeper relationship with God. By 'best' I mean the most instructive and exemplary - Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, Kahlil Gibran...

what is it - everyone can commune with God, or that God choose who to commune with arbitrarily? — AmadeusD

There are many reasons. There is a time for everyone, People need to be ready. This is what religion is for: it makes it know to people that they can know God. Many people are not interested because they want to live on their own terms. Some - like Dawkins - seem very angry about God.

Psychedelics cause the least amount of damage along any axis of known, reported drug use metrics. — AmadeusD

What kind of damage are they measuring? I'm talking about psychic damage. These people are entering into areas they don't understand. These substances can open the mind to dangerous psychic realities. I knew one such 'psychonaut' as he called himself. His mind was visibly burned out.

There are many levels of faith. Some have an intuitive sense of God, some have deeper faith and enter religious life, some become mystics and have a deeper relationship with God. By 'best' I mean the most instructive and exemplary - Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, Kahlil Gibran... — EnPassant

I think you may, for whatever reason, be disposed to misread these questions. I presume you're a theist?

The question asked was why is it this experience

Some - like Dawkins - seem very angry about God. — EnPassant

Not at all, and explicitly so. I take it you've not read any of his work? He's clearly not an angry man beyond watching religious zealotry illogically cause damage, whether personal or social. You may disagree, and that's fine, but his position isn't one of anger - quite clearly. He just has a rather reasonable gripe with supernatural beliefs because beliefs encourage/motivate behaviours. Many of which, from the religious impulse, are negative in his view (and mine, and millions of others).

What kind of damage are they measuring? — EnPassant

Physical, psychological, social, economic.

All of them. There's nothing missing that could matter.

These substances can open the mind to dangerous psychic realities. — EnPassant

You're going to need to say a lot more about what you mean by "psychic realities" and how they could be "dangerous" for this to fly anywhere. I also suggest you do not have a visual line on that bloke's mind. That is absurd.