Jim Choate writes: [ . . . ]
A personal philosophy is a religion, different words but same idea. If your thesis is that for something to be a religion it requires some sort of social approval you miss the whole point. Even Jesus recognized that a persons religion didn't rely on a 'church' and the implied infrastructure. This is the reason he told his listeners to pray in a closet alone.
Not all philosophies are religions. Asserting so is an attempt to make one or both of the terms meaningless.
There is no reason to think that a god does exist, so why would one even need to think about or believe in the negative.
There is no reason to believe one doesn't either. If we take your claim at [ . . . ]
There are two forms of atheism (visit alt.atheism.moderated for an unending discussion). "Strong" atheists state that they "believe that god does not exist." "Weak" atheists state that they "do not believe that god exists." The first is a faith based positive assertion, analogous to "god exists". The second makes no assertion and hence has no associated burden of proof. Given the lack of evidence for the existence of a god, it is the default, logical position. Do you believe in leprechauns, because there is no proof that they don't exist? Do you believe in the Hindu pantheon? [ . . . ]
Ah, another of your mistakes. Religion and by extension faith are not constrained by reason or logic. It's this realisation that puts some issues and aspect of human inquiry outside of the reach of science, logic, etc.
Without reason and logic, how do you propose to prove these assertions? Reason and logic don't "constrain", they provide a framework for discovery. This framework is unavailable to, and indeed actively rejected by, believers in the supernatural. Any meaningful definition of the word "inquiry" presupposes the use of logic.
No, only some religions are irrational. The point you're missing is not one of rationality or irrationality but rather transcendance.
All faith-based assertions are by definition irrational. Mystics frequently speak of transcendence as if the word denotes a concept with a particular meaning, but never provide a coherent definition. Perhaps you'll surprise me? Regards, pjm