"God is dead and we killed him"; that's what the atheists have been saying for decades now, as they are proud of their handicraft in "destroying" God because it's profitable. Let's face it, atheists are literally PAID by leftists organizations to destroy the very fabric that woven the West after the Roman Empire crumbled.
And now what do we have? Their wet dreams of course. With their hatred upon the Abrahamic God and their aim to destroy it have been realized, they paved the way to THEIR religion of choice: Marxism. They're so logical, so intelligent, so reasonable, that they decided that the very fabric of culture, society, history and nations have to be destroyed because it is, according to them, also mandated by that old religion because fuck it.
I'm not one to argue definitions. Using your own definition if someone believes in god without proof that is not Rational even if you define it as agnostic.
More to the point OP has stated that Dawkins is an atheist. Well Dawkins doesn't fit the definition of atheist if you define it as someone who claims there is no god. There isn't a single well known atheist that makes that claim. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitches, Harris, Dillahunty, Aaron Ra, Maher all take the stance of not believing because of lack of evidence. And I take the same stance. All would be considered agnostic by your definition.
And I think the semantics are moot. OP clearly made claims about atheist with no backing. If you're going to make a claim there should be evidence to back it up.
Yes, it is exactly not rational. Humans in general are not very friendly with this whole "rational thought" thing, so i settle for "non-contradictory".
Stance of "not believing because of lack of evidence" is exactly "there is no god for there is no evidence there is a god". Compare with "there is no need to assume god exists, for there is no evidence he affects anything" of a perfectly 'rational' being. Though i admit, the difference between these two is very subtle.
OP's dumb post is it's own separate story, frankly, given Christianity's rise was not exactly any peaceful or pretty.
I pretty much agree with everything you replied with except this:
I can't choose to believe in god. I'm either convinced or I'm not based on the data I've been given. I'm not convinced because the evidence doesn't support the god claim. I'm not claiming there is no god. I'm saying there isn't enough evidence to reach a conclusion that there is one . However I don't feel there is reason to live my life taking a god I to consideration anymore than I take dragons into consideration. There simply isn't proof that it exists so I live as if it doesn't until proven otherwise.
In a nutshell I think we disagree on terms and definitions and you would probably classify me and most atheist as agnostic. And that's fine I don't care about the semantics or labels.