You seem to be conflating a couple of things here. When you say that belief in God is not necessarily without basis in scientific or rational thought, I don't suppose you're going full blown argument-from-ignorance on us; rather, I think that you're saying, quite correctly, that a belief in God is not inconsistent with scientific etc. thought. And I think I'm right in saying that this is also what you mean when you say that it's not irrational to believe in God, in the sense that such belief is not incoherent, it doesn't contradict certain knowledge, etc. However, not all atheistic positions are synonymous with with what you've argued against, though there certainly are a great many whose views your criticism applies to, and I don't think that we're quite at a 'science vs. religion' ('oh no it doesn't', 'oh yes it does') stage, here. As you say, for some people any supernatural event or myth could take the place of any other, since we don't know which of them is true. I think you're wrong, however, to say that it's a type of Occam's razor question. In the first instance, most people's religious views are not of this type: many believe in God, but they don't just stop there, bringing in life after death, magic healing powers, etc. Stripped of these, we're thinking about a creator, with little or no religious connotations in the sense I've mentioned above. That's all fine, but... As Ring Lord has hinted at, this is simply as assumption on your part. Some would say, an unnecessary assumption.