Ensign Steve

Good point. It's a subtle difference, but a significant one. Also sometimes I forget not all atheists are strong atheists.

Quote:

Agnosticism says "Well, I don't really know" so is not helpful. Any other approach is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Sometimes agnosticism says it can't be known, which is kind of a cop out.

Fred

I tend to see religion itself as irrational. I never had to choose whether or not I would believe in a god. I just didn't.
To be honest, I don't know where I would fit in to the question. My disbelief in gods seems natural, not involving any choice.
Is this rational ? I really wouldn't know. I hope so.
My "approach" to religion is more out of curiosity as to it being a historical event. That is the only thing that interests me about religion.
Does this answer the question ?
Sorry.

SlateGreySky

I think Fred's concerns are quite interesting.

It seems to me that very few people make a conscious choice to "believe" in God based on which view is more rational. As Hume showed us, we believe in something because it's convincing, not because it's rational.

I agree . . . you only choose to articulate, not to adhere to some mental process. I think that belief or disbelief in God is frequently motivated far less by rational decision-making than it is by environment. That's not to say that such belief(s) are thereby made irrational, any more so than having brown eyes is irrational.

One school of thought says that it is only when beliefs are articulated (according to a language) that they fall under the domain of logic. Conversely, a philosopher like Hegel would say that the entire universe is rational.

Hegel, of course, was a thoroughgoing theist.