I pulled this from a combination of .edu and other credible sources. It's set in the context of his commentary on the Problem of Induction. My point in referencing his comments wasn't in any way to discuss his personal religious beliefs, which are irrelevant to the discussion, anyway. Rather, it was simply to correct the poster's statements that it is irrational to believe in something without physical evidence. Adhering to this point of view must also lead one to the conclusion that it is irrational to believe in the validity of scientific epistemology.
To reach a conclusion that "believing in 'this' god is irrational" requires a philosophical basis. Because science is a mere philosophical subset, it isn't good enough to assume it has the final say. We need to defer to Philosophy in a broader sense to determine whether there is a way to determine what is and what is not logically necessary. If there is a philosophical basis by you can conclude God is logically impossible, or even that it impossible to know whether God exists, then you are free to make that conclusion. However, the reverse seems to be true, i.e. Intelligent Design is a logical necessity for reality's existence.
I see. Could you please clearly state your stance towards the topic? I do not want to be mistaken. I concur; currently there is nothing that is good nor developed enough to have a final say in things.
I'm saying a few things:
1) Debate about God's existence cannot be about whether there is or is not physical evidence for His existence, lest it be invalid. In the same way we defer to broader Philosophy to explore and comment upon the assumptions of Science that fall outside the scope of Empiricism, so, too, we must also defer to broader Philosophy to explore and comment upon God, an entity that by common definition/assumption also falls outside the scope of Empiricism.
2) Hume's personal religious beliefs are irrelevant. However, he is correct about the limitations of inductive reasoning and scientific epistemology, specifically in his acknowledgment of its philosophical foundations. The implications of his commentary are all-too-often shrugged off by empiricists as impractical of consideration. This is a huge mistake.
3) Any person who claims it is silly to believe in God without physical evidence is a hypocrite if he also believes that scientific epistemology is valid.
4) There is a correct way to approach a debate about God's existence. Specifically, the question is one of whether God is logically implicated, logically impossible, or if it is simply impossible to know whether such a thing exists.
5) I personally think that belief in God is rational because He is logically necessary. Specifically, I believe God exists inasmuch as Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality exists, and I believe Intelligent Design exists inasmuch as reality is demonstrably a mental construct.