Yes, if its based on logic.

@Gwendolyn2018: 23rd April A very good analysis . We need to get religion out by its roots - keeping the good things (e.g. socialisation) of course.

Of course. There are man religious people who rationally question whether existence holds religious meaning. #doubtingthomas

I feel if one is a Christian one must be insufficiently sceptical.

If your using the term as a verb, you can.
One can religiously wash their car.

2. adverb
   with consistent and conscientious regularity.

So if you have an agnostic catholic who always attends, confesses and all that goes with it, yes.
He would be skeptical of the entire religion, yet follow the traditions religiously.

@Mcflewster

Yes, because this would fall under practicing a belief that one does not actually hold. Has this happened? Maybe that's contestable.

As I define “religious” as an attribute of those who value “faith” (belief without evidence asserted as “Truth” (belief in the supernatural)) equally to or over valuing my definition of truth (testable, supported by evidence). As agnostic is widely defined as a person who believes that nothing can be knows (about supernatural claims) . . . I find the idea of “religious and skeptically agnostic” to be an oxymoron. If you define “religious” differently, I suppose you could make it work.

As for “ . . . we can be very careful over everything that we do without all this worship and outside agency nonsense and we might get more respect from the actual religions if we were.”

It has been my experience that many religious people, as a part of their indoctrination process, have been conditioned to fear those without their specific version of their faith-based dogma. In other words, if you don’t attend and support their church, you are going to hell and will burn for eternity for not paying homage to their deity. After that category I have found, many (religious) will adopt the, well if you attend “a” church and have faith you may be OK and may not burn in hell forever.

Atheist (not believing in positive faith based god assertions) and even agnostic (recognizing faith based claims can not be not known) represent an anathema to the religion business model as religions achieve their money and power on faith based assertions. To maintain authority over the faithful, most religious leaders recognize we (atheists and agnostics) impose a threat to their meal ticket and promote (to perpetuate their power base) the degradation for those free from their faith based authority.

You can be whatever you want to be. You feel what you feel.?

One can be an agnostic theist.

As a writer, I’ve noticed that there are two “definitions” to just about any word. There’s the denotative, and the connotative. The denotative is the actual dictionary definition of a word (which is only a ‘culturally agreed upon definition). Spirituality is a good example. Then there’s the connotative definition of the word... or what the word evokes when we hear it. This would be the emotions and the images the word conjures (even the word conjure here has certain connotations)... most people “focus” on the denotative, especially in debate, and forget that very few people actually use the denotative meaning when they choose a word.

Religion, spirituality, superstition, theology, atheism and agnosticism are also subject to this. So we choose words that best fit how we “feel” when we use them. The best example is: “I’m spiritual but not religious.” So sure, why not.

I wouldn't go out of my way to antagonise anyone but I sure as shit am not going to try and fit in with religious beliefs.

One can be anything one chooses, but I would always recommend against rationalizing or using language to murky otherwise clear waters. Context is king.