I place my trust in reason and rationale.
I do too.
My
belief about believing 
)) in God is that belief in God is not necessarily irrational, nor is it necessarily irrational to not believe in God. The belief itself is neither rational nor irrational. Rationality of belief in God is a property of the person who possesses that belief. It's a matter of how that person justifies their belief.
What I do consider
irrational is believing that you have to believe either way that God either does or doesn't exist, and that it is
rational for everybody to have the same belief. It is where one's
belief about believing is that there is only one, single, same/identical answer for everybody universally and collectively. I don't agree with that.
Are people who believe in a 'god' thick? Of course not. On the contrary, many are highly intelligent individuals who, in all other areas of their lives apply logic and reason - EXCEPT to this one area. This is classic decomparmentalisation at work. That is to say that one is able to apply logic and reason to all other areas of their life, save for one area, where they leave reason and rationale at the door.
I don't agree that belief in God is irrational. My reason is this. People cannot be objective about whether or not God exists. Because people cannot be objective about whether or not God exists, it shouldn't be irrational to believe either way. Rather, I consider it irrational to believe that everybody has to believe one way or the other, considering that you can't be objective about it.
To me, what makes belief or disbelief in God irrational is not the belief itself, but when the person
arrogantly asserts that his/her belief is better than that of another person who holds a differing or opposing belief. The irrationally is not in the belief itself, but the
belief about the belief. I think it's irrational, also to believe that the belief or disbelief in God is more rational than the other.
Perhaps I should call it the
meta-belief for the existence of God.
Concerning the existence of God, atheists and theists with humble belief in their own beliefs are rational. Atheists and theists with arrogant belief in their own beliefs are irrational. The rational belief about beliefs is therefore to not believe that one's beliefs is better than someone else's beliefs.
It's a question of "beliefs for me" vs. "beliefs for others."
That is how I
rationalise that belief/disbelief in God is never irrational in itself. It is only irrational when one thinks one's beliefs are superior to those of another.
I am not here to 'undermine' anything, as such. That said, despite this being an 'interfaith' forum, I see no harm in me, as an atheist, challenging the assertions that there is a god.
If faith is a personal thing, then I am not "asserting" anything to you, only to myself.
More importantly, if faith in a God isn't a social problem and doesn't have consequences in wider society, I don't see why you should challenge it. Most of the time, it is appropriate to challenge a belief only because it is a social problem.
I am not saying that belief in God is never a social problem, but often it's not belief in God in itself, but the belief that God authorises certain decisions, actions or sentiments. In that case you should challenge not the belief in God, but the belief that God authorises certain decisions, actions or sentiments.
I apply “logic and reason” where I see it as appropriate. This therefore means that it does not appertain to all areas of life however. ........... So it is with matters of faith, as far as I can see. I’m not asserting a magic mate in the sky and thus placing the onus of the asserter to provide evidence. I’m someone who thinks of “faith” as being a little more (for want of a better word) sophisticated than the high school notion of a “magic mate in the sky”. If I have a concept of God, it is not one that I reify. Faith, I believe, is part of a different paradigm than science, in the same way that me enjoying music is different than me working out how to put a piece of furniture together (by using appropriate logic and reason; or if that fails looking at the instructions).
I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I would just like to point out (not referring to you personally), that people tend to use the term "reason" as if logic and reasoning were the same thing. I disagree with that idea.
Logic is just a
subset of reasoning. It is only one kind of reasoning.
There are other kinds of reasoning, like mathematical, emotional, sentimental reasoning, etc.
Also, what disqualifies the thinking that artists and musicians use from being "reasoning?" No, it isn't left-hemisphere thinking, but just because it isn't left-hemisphere thinking doesn't mean it isn't "reasoning."
What disqualifies resolution of problems in personal relationships from being "reasoning?" Resolution of problems in personal relationships involves thinking about one's feelings and emotions. It therefore requires emotional reasoning. You can't resolve problems in relationships by logic, science and mathematics. No, you have to use your feelings because feelings are the way to go in relationships. Doing otherwise dehumanises the relationship.
Problem solving involves reasoning. Resolution of problems in personal relationships doesn't involve logic but one's emotions. We should therefore call it emotional reasoning. Logic, therefore is not the only kind of reasoning. It is only a subset of everything we might mean under the "blanket term" of "reasoning."
