To the Anti-Religious

[PureX]

MSizer already defined his form of normative, and it still does not preclude irrational behavior from being normative.

As for your other claim, does it matter what the last digit of pi is? (this is an admittedly strained example because we can prove that pi never ends) If we cannot determine the answer to a question, there is no answer in all practicality. If there is no answer and no way to obtain one, there is nothing to talk about.

I fail to see any logic at all in your reasoning, here. If we don't know the answer to a question, how can we presume to know that the answer is meaningless, or insignificant? What evidence would we have to lead us to such a presumption?

Also, if we do not have the answer to a question, why would we then presume there is no answer to be found? Again, what evidence would we have to lead us to such a presumption?

Imagine if scientists followed this irrational reasoning every time they formulated a question that they could not immediately formulate an answer to, and they simply presumed, then, that either there is no answer, or that the answer wouldn't matter or be of any significance even if they were to find it. The whole practice of science would be stopped before it began. And we would cease to learn anything new.

 

[PureX]

OK look, we're really sidetracking from the topic here. In response to "why is irrationality bad" - if you deny the value of rationale, you have no grounds to continue debating, because building an argument requires appeal to rationale. If we each just pick our own rules and revise them as we see fit (as theologians love to do) we can't expect to play nicely together in the sandbox.

As to the OP, polythiests are not ignored (at least by me anyway), they're just not mentioned often, since I have no objection to their beliefs. By the very nature of their beliefs, they don't have exclusive clubs like other theists do, therefore polytheists are not likely to be intolerant the way other theists often are.

I don't believe that irrationality is "bad". But I do believe that dishonesty is unhealthy for we human beings. And by dishonesty, I mean that we hold in our minds a different vision of reality than the reality that actually exists around us. Some degree of this kind of dishonesty is inevitable, as we humans do not possess the capacity to perceive all of what actually exists around us. But we seem to do OK if we're willing to continually alter our vision of reality according to the constant flow of new information that we receive from our interaction with actual reality, even when that information is not welcome, and may cause us to suffer.

The inaccuracy of our envisioned reality is dangerous to us because it blinds us to the actual consequences of our actions. We envision smooth sailing when in actuality we are about to run aground on a reef. We need to be skeptical of our own concepts of reality. And we need to be open and paying attention to whatever information we are receiving from the world around us, through our interaction with it. This is the only means we have of staying honest, and staying healthy within the limitations of the human condition.

 

[Dunemeister]

OK look, we're really sidetracking from the topic here. In response to "why is irrationality bad" - if you deny the value of rationale, you have no grounds to continue debating, because building an argument requires appeal to rationale. If we each just pick our own rules and revise them as we see fit (as theologians love to do) we can't expect to play nicely together in the sandbox.

Nobody denies the value of "rationale." Everyone, even the most insane, provides a rationale for their actions and beliefs. Possessing a rationale isn't much of a definition of "rationality" or "logic" (not the same thing, by the way).

Anyway, you go on to speak about "building an argument," I take it you mean that Christian belief (at any rate) is irrational because Christian beliefs are justified by arguments that apparently don't follow the normal rules. Is that about right?

I'll assume my inference is correct for the moment and observe a couple of things about it.

First, it assumes that to be rational, a belief must be the conclusion of an argument (actually or theoretically). The problem is that most of our beliefs aren't. Take perceptual beliefs. My belief that there is a computer in front of me is not based on any argument whatsoever. Skeptics have amused themselves and others with cute arguments about how it isn't possible to reason from my perception of the computer to the existence of the computer. Very amusing indeed. More seriously, my belief that there is a computer in front of me is entirely rational despite the fact that it isn't the conclusion of any argument. More, it is warranted; so much so that it constitutes knowledge. Therefore, at least the vast majority of my perceptual beliefs are rational and warranted without appeal to argument.

But anyway, isn't there a special problem for belief in God? Doesn't that sort of belief require an argument? I can't see why. Perhaps belief in God arises in a manner similar to perception. If God in fact exists, something like that is probably true. So to question the rationality of belief in God is tantamount to questioning the truth of theism. (That's a problem because, on our line so far, we are taking the skeptic to be saying something like "Look, I can't prove Christianity is false. Who could do a thing like that. What I'm saying is that, whether theism is true or false, it is irrational to believe it." Thus we're looking, at least in this stage of the argument, for a complaint against theistic belief that doesn't presuppose the truth or falsity of it. The candidate offered at this point is that Christian belief is to be faulted because it is irrational. But as we've seen, that doesn't work.)

Second, what do you mean by the charge (if it is your charge) that Christian arguments don't follow the same rules of logic everyone else endorses? Which particular rules do they flout, or even invent for their own nefarious purposes?

 

[MSizer]

Nobody denies the value of "rationale." Everyone, even the most insane, provides a rationale for their actions and beliefs. Possessing a rationale isn't much of a definition of "rationality" or "logic" (not the same thing, by the way).

Anyway, you go on to speak about "building an argument," I take it you mean that Christian belief (at any rate) is irrational because Christian beliefs are justified by arguments that apparently don't follow the normal rules. Is that about right?

Essentially that's correct. I have other reasons too, but I'll grant that that's the essence of my opinion.

My belief that there is a computer in front of me is not based on any argument whatsoever.

That is correct, but it is based on an appeal to empirical evidence, while many religious claims are not.

The candidate offered at this point is that Christian belief is to be faulted because it is irrational. But as we've seen, that doesn't work.)

True, but you wouldn't need proof to dismiss my claim of owning a diamond the size of a car that I keep in my wallet at all times, would you? Christianity makes claims of the same calibur, so they are as close to being false as anything can be.

Second, what do you mean by the charge (if it is your charge) that Christian arguments don't follow the same rules of logic everyone else endorses? Which particular rules do they flout, or even invent for their own nefarious purposes?

Yes, that is my charge, and what I mean is that arguing with a theist is like playing chess with someone who brings their own rulebook, and furthermore insists that the rules can be ammended as s/he sees fit. For example, I could make a claim that I have never seen evidence for the presence of god, while a theist might say "but god exists outside of space and time". This has the apparent function of rendering god immuned to my criticism, but it actually does not, because there is no reason to believe that anythig exists outside of space and time, much less god. Claims of this nature are 100% speculative and 0% rational, and they are common tricks in the bags of theologians (with which they are able to fool themselves).

 

[Dunemeister]

That is correct, but it is based on an appeal to empirical evidence, while many religious claims are not.

Actually, that misunderstands perception a tick (at least in philosophy of science). My perception of the computer does not provide me evidence for the conclusion that there is a computer. No argument whatsoever is involved. Rather, I have the perception and the belief merely forms in me. My perception doesn't give me EVIDENCE. Rather, the perception OCCASIONS (causes) the belief.

And why can't the same be said (by way of analogy) with God. I perceive God (under the right conditions, again analogously with perception) and form the belief that God exists. Voila! Perceptual belief in God. Perfectly rational.

Lastly, I might make lots of claims that don't involve empirical evidence that are perfectly acceptable. Take memory. I believe I was at the Grand Tetons last weekend. I took no photographs, nobody saw me, and I told no one where I was going. All I have is my memory. Clearly, though, my belief that I was at the Grand Tetons is perfectly rational. Take a priori beliefs. I believe in the logical law of identity and that 2+2=4. I believe they are true and that they are necessarily true. But by definition, nothing in my contingent experience can give me empirical evidence for the necessary truth of a proposition. Yet my belief that these truths are necessarily true if true at all is perfectly rational (heck, my belief is not just rational, it's right!). So again, I'm not so sure why belief in God, if it is not supported by "empirical evidence" (whatever that's supposed to mean), is problematic.

True, but you wouldn't need proof to dismiss my claim of owning a diamond the size of a car that I keep in my wallet at all times, would you? Christianity makes claims of the same calibur, so they are as close to being false as anything can be.

Okay, but here again, you're shifting the locus of the complaint. At first, the complaint seemed to be that Christian belief was irrational because it's not based on anything empirical (whatever that means). Here you're saying that certain Christian claims are logically absurd. Of course, logical absurdity is not the same thing as empirically undetermined.

But again, what's the specific complaint? What specific Christian belief is such that there is no interpretation or formulation that doesn't fall prey to the charge of logical absurdity?

Yes, that is my charge, and what I mean is that arguing with a theist is like playing chess with someone who brings their own rulebook, and furthermore insists that the rules can be ammended as s/he sees fit. For example, I could make a claim that I have never seen evidence for the presence of god, while a theist might say "but god exists outside of space and time". This has the apparent function of rendering god immuned to my criticism, but it actually does not, because there is no reason to believe that anythig exists outside of space and time, much less god. Claims of this nature are 100% speculative and 0% rational, and they are common tricks in the bags of theologians (with which they are able to fool themselves).

Since when is speculation not rational? Surely some speculations are rational whereas others are not? What makes them rational depends on your background information, and if the Christian sees or is aware of some background information that renders his speculations about God's nature rational, what of it?

But is seems that once again it is YOU (not the theist) who is changing the criticism (and therefore the rules). Perhaps these criticisms are related, but your presentation of them conflates and confuses them, so it is hard to pin down the compaint so as to answer it. Your example is off the top of your head, so I don't really blame you for its being implausible, but it really is. I can't imagine a Christian (at any rate) explaining your inability to perceive God (or God's handiwork) by saying that God is outside of space and time (although we do say this to mean that he is not limited by creation). For Christians generally also say that God works in and through the created order and even performs miracles within it. So I just find your story incredible. I rather imagine that your story is a fiction designed to bring out the sort of complaint you are making. I'd rather work with something much more true to fact than something off the cuff and imaginary. Can you please show which Christian doctrines or styles of reasoning "change the rules"?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

OK look, we're really sidetracking from the topic here.

I apologize. Are we? Considering this deals specifically with anti-religious attitudes, which is often based on logic and rationality, I think understanding the point of being irrational is still on-topic.

But if Storm thinks it is off-topic, I do apologize.

In response to "why is irrationality bad" - if you deny the value of rationale, you have no grounds to continue debating, because building an argument requires appeal to rationale. If we each just pick our own rules and revise them as we see fit (as theologians love to do) we can't expect to play nicely together in the sandbox.

Well, I don't deny the value of rationality at all. I wholeheartedly support rationality and logic as important tools for survival and reality-comprehension.

Arguing that irrationality is an important part of human experience can be done rationally enough, so I don't think it's wise to just throw it out as having no grounds.

Don't we all pick our own rules and revise them as we learn and experience more in life? Why should this be a negative thing? No one will ever play nice in the sandbox!

 

[Dunemeister]

One of the take-home lessons, at least from the discussion between me and MSizer, is that there is no objection to the rationality of (Christian) faith that doesn't presume the falisty of Christian belief. So it's simly not open to an objector to take the position of "Well, no one can prove Christianity is false, but whether or not it's false, it's irrational to believe it." If Christianity is true, it's probably rational to believe it. If it isn't, it may still be rational to believe it. The anti-religious actually need an argument for the falisty of Christian belief. It's not enough to show that all the arguments for Christian belief are not completely compelling. The Christian can admit that without it affecting the rationality of their belief. For they believe that they have a source of warrant for their belief independent of argument -- faith.

Skeptics have a couple of avenues to pursue, then. First, they can supply an argument that shows Christianity is incoherent (e.g., Problem of Evil). The problem there is that it's unclear what force these arguments have. Frequently minor modifications can be made to theistic beliefs, or salient distinctions made, that blunt them substantially. Second, they can provide compelling atheological arguments such that Christian beliefs (or even, say, mere belief in God) are false. This is a hard row to hoe, but there you have it.

Most of the anti-religious simply satisfy themselves with name-calling (Christians are stupid, irrational, immoral, or fattening) or with the observation that there are few and poor arguments in favor of theism (false and misleading as I see it, but can be granted for our purposes). The problem here is that both approaches assume the falsity of theism, the very point at issue.

 

[themadhair]

One of the take-home lessons, at least from the discussion between me and MSizer, is that there is no objection to the rationality of (Christian) faith that doesn't presume the falisty of Christian belief.

Have to take issue with this. There is a massive hole in the logic here. Virgin birth and resurrection are irrational (lack of evidence and every piece of biology you care to study says it just doesn’t happen).

Now this must leave you in a quandary. If you follow your line of reasoning above to say that I can only hold this objection due to presupposing the falsity of virgin birth and resurrection then you are begging for the obvious retort – this line of reasoning applies to ANY proposition regardless of its truth value. You don’t believe I am god, well that must be because you have presupposed the falsity of my godliness.

For they believe that they have a source of warrant for their belief independent of argument -- faith.

And this is irrational. Faith, in and of itself, does not affect the truth value of any proposition, and believing it does as you imply here is irrational.

Frequently minor modifications can be made to theistic beliefs, or salient distinctions made, that blunt them substantially.

Altering a belief system so as to render it immune to argumentation while not going the whole hog to align it with reality seems a bit of a cop out to me.

The problem here is that both approaches assume the falsity of theism, the very point at issue.

Ignoring the problem with this as I have mentioned above, I actually believe that starting from an assumption of falsity is the rational approach to take. If I claimed I was god I’d consider you irrational if you didn’t assume the falsity of that proposition to begin with.

 

[Dunemeister]

Have to take issue with this. There is a massive hole in the logic here. Virgin birth and resurrection are irrational (lack of evidence and every piece of biology you care to study says it just doesn’t happen).

Thanks for bringing this up, themadhair, because it provides for useful clarifications. So let's examine this so-called "hole in the logic." You are claiming that Christian belief in the virgin birth and the resurrection is irrational. Why? Because there isn't much evidence for these beliefs and what we know from biology suggests, nay screams out, that such things don't (can't?) happen.

As a Christian, I might ask, "Why think there isn't much evidence?" Christianity, after all, says that there is a way to know the truth of the virgin birth and the resurrection. That way is through what Acquinas calls "the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit." I'll call this the IIHS going forward for brevity. Very briefly (which means this account is extremely truncated and in need of filling out), humankind has fallen into sin. As a result, we are subject to a kind of affective madness such that we love and hate the wrong things. The cognitive upshot of all this is that, although we have a faculty by which we can know truths about God (a divine sense, if you will), that faculty is hindered in its function by our affective madness. So even when we form true beliefs about God in the right circumstances, we are apt to dismiss, reject, or ignore them. At spiritual conversion, God heals (or begins to heal) this affective madness, thereby clearing the way for the proper function of our divine sense. However, that's not enough for us to believe such things as the virgin birth and the resurrection. For even without hindering our divine sense, these things are underdetermined by the available evidence. Yet, believing them is important to salvation and to our properly relating to God through Jesus. So God has provided another means by which we can form true beliefs in what Jonathan Edwards calls "the great things of the gospel." That way is through the IIHS. That is, God Himself testifies to the truth of what is revealed in scripture (or through the preaching of the gospel).

So IF CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE, Christians have a reliable (and rational) means of knowing the truth of doctrines such as the virgin birth and the resurrection: the IIHS (together with the proclamation of the gospel or the reading of scripture). However, IF CHRISTIANITY IS FALSE, Christians don't have this reliable means of knowing the truth of these doctrines. Therefore, holding to them with the firmness most Christians do would probably be irrational. THEREFORE, you cannot claim that Christians are irrational in holding the beliefs they do unless you can show that Christianity is actually false. There are ways of attempting this, but I leave that to you.

Now this must leave you in a quandary. If you follow your line of reasoning above to say that I can only hold this objection due to presupposing the falsity of virgin birth and resurrection then you are begging for the obvious retort – this line of reasoning applies to ANY proposition regardless of its truth value. You don’t believe I am god, well that must be because you have presupposed the falsity of my godliness.

There's a confusion buried in this claim, which I hope my previous comment clears up. The issue is that Christianity, if true, has a rational means of knowing the truth of its doctrines. If you wish to impugn the rationality of Christianity, you must go further than say "there isn't enough evidence." The Christian might well admit that, minus IIHS, historians have little basis for confidence in the resurrection (say). But that need not cause the least spiritual or intellectual crisis for the Christian. For the Christian, again if Christianity is true, has resources that the historian either doesn't have or doesn't avail himself of.

And this is irrational. Faith, in and of itself, does not affect the truth value of any proposition, and believing it does as you imply here is irrational.

Again, I hope my explanations have cleared up the confusion. Just one more point of clarification. It's no part of the Christian claim to say that faith AFFECTS the truth value of a proposition. Rather, Christians claim that faith (what I am calling the IIHS) is a MEANS OF KNOWING the truth value of certain propositions (such as that Jesus was born of a literal virgin and literally rose from the dead).

Altering a belief system so as to render it immune to argumentation while not going the whole hog to align it with reality seems a bit of a cop out to me.

Who has done so? Certainly not I. (And let's not confuse a Christian's explaining parts of his belief system that you may not have heard before or do not accept for "changing" a belief system.)

Ignoring the problem with this as I have mentioned above, I actually believe that starting from an assumption of falsity is the rational approach to take. If I claimed I was god I’d consider you irrational if you didn’t assume the falsity of that proposition to begin with.

Well, that depends on what you're up to. If you and your friends want to mock or pity Christians in the privacy of your own homes, then of course you're free to assume whatever you want about the truth or falsity of Christian beliefs. But if you're trying to demonstrate to the Christian (presumably because you care about her) that there's something untoward in believing as she does, you need to provide some sort of argument that DOESN'T presuppose the falsity of Christian belief. Otherwise, your argument need not have any weight whatsoever with the Christian. It won't provide her any sort of compelling reason to even consider rethinking her position.

In other words, you need to provide her with a defeater for her Christian belief. A defeater is a proposition P which, if understood and believed, puts a person in a position of having to change or abandon her set of beliefs B. For instance, I am in a widget factory and see a row of red widgets passing before me along a conveyor belt. I form the belief "Now there's a fine-looking red widget." The foreman comes along and tells me that the widgets are irradiated by red light. This information casts doubt on my belief that the widgets I see are red. This defeater doesn't show that my belief is false, it simply removes any warrant the belief has. As a result it is no longer appropriate to hold the belief. Call this an undercutting defeater. On the other hand, the foreman might tell me that the widget is actually yellow, but under the special lights they look red. Now I have a rebutting defeater, a defeater that implies that my original belief is false.

So with respect to Christianity, you have two general strategies. You can provide the Christian an undercutting defeater or a rebutting defeater. For an undercutting defeater, you might argue, for example, that contemporary biblical scholarship has reliably shown that the original Christian movement was a hoax. (We have discovered letters from the original apostles detailing in all seriousness how the hoax is to be perpetrated and sustained...) Given the central role of scripture in the Christian's epistemology, that would be devastating. For a rebutting defeater, you might show how Christian (or bare theistic) belief is logically incoherent. The classic problem of evil is a case in point. There may be other strategies, but again, I leave those for homework.

To sum up, I think my point stands. Namely, there are no objections to the rationality of full-blooded Christian belief that do not presuppose the falsity of Christian belief. This rules out the posture of "Well, I can't prove Christianity is false, but even if Christianity is true (contrary to fact, as the objector sees it) it is irrational to believe it."

 

[Smoke]

And why can't the same be said (by way of analogy) with God. I perceive God (under the right conditions, again analogously with perception) and form the belief that God exists. Voila! Perceptual belief in God. Perfectly rational.

It seems very irrational to people who don't have any reason to believe you have any such perception, though. I can claim that I perceive the ghosts of Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek appearing before me right now, and I might even be quite sincere in that claim, but nobody in his right mind would believe me.

 

[Smoke]

The problem here is that both approaches assume the falsity of theism, the very point at issue.

Theists -- or many of them, anyway -- make extraordinary claims and mutually exclusive claims and never have any evidence to back those claims up apart from some variation on "I just know in my heart that it's true." It's not necessary to assume the falsity of theism to meet such claims with considerable skepticism. In fact, most theists regard those theistic claims that contradict their own with very strong skepticism indeed.

 

[Dunemeister]

It seems very irrational to people who don't have any reason to believe you have any such perception, though. I can claim that I perceive the ghosts of Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek appearing before me right now, and I might even be quite sincere in that claim, but nobody in his right mind would believe me.

Ah, well when you add the word "seems" you change the tenor of the debate. I can fully acknowledge that, to someone without IIHS, the claims of Christians seem outlandish. Indeed, 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 says as much:

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

Thus I as a Christian cannot, by way of argument, instill faith in someone who doesn't believe. The whole story is, as Paul says here, "foolishness to the Gentiles." The gospel does not bear the marks of what our culture deems wise. There are no logically compelling arguments. The evidence underdetermines the conclusion. It's based on a story rather than on "clean" reasoning. And on it goes. All I can really do as a Christian is tell the story. If the hearer is one of those "being saved", then they will believe (sooner or later).

OTOH, it is possible for both sides (assuming a charity in which each side actually cares about the spiritual and intellectual life of the other) to, as I described earlier, provide defeaters for the other. Having received such a defeater, the person whose beliefs are defeated will have to either reformulate their beliefs or adopt a new set. That's the stuff of intellectual and spiritual crises.

So what about your perception of the ghost of Chiang? Well, as a Christian, I don't rule out the existence of ghosts, so I'm not inclined to doubt you; but then, I'm not inclined to believe you. The question would be whether humans are the sort of beings who can have contact with ghosts. In any case, I'd say it's entirely possible. And I think I'm in my right mind.

 

[Dunemeister]

Theists -- or many of them, anyway -- make extraordinary claims and mutually exclusive claims and never have any evidence to back those claims up apart from some variation on "I just know in my heart that it's true." It's not necessary to assume the falsity of theism to meet such claims with considerable skepticism. In fact, most theists regard those theistic claims that contradict their own with very strong skepticism indeed.

Extraordinary by what lights? Most of the world are theists. It would seem that the skeptics are making extraordinary claims. It's the skeptic who demands -- in the teeth of nearly universal rejection of the idea -- evidence for every belief. Most of the world believes that some beliefs, and in particular God-beliefs, don't require evidence to be rationally believed. Why should we bow to skeptical pressure? Because really, that's all it is. Pressure. There's no reason in the world to think that, in order to be rational, one's theistic beliefs must be based on a wide and extensive body of evidence. Indeed, there's no reason to think any evidence of any sort is required at all.

 

[Smoke]

Most of the world are theists.

And they embrace innumerable mutually-exclusive theisms. If one man claims to be the Lost Dauphin, we may be justified in regarding his claim with skepticism. If thousands of men claim to be the Lost Dauphin, it is even more reasonable to be skeptical of the claim of any particular one.

 

[Smoke]

Indeed, there's no reason to think any evidence of any sort is required at all.

Indeed, there is no reliable indication that any evidence of any sort exists.

 

[Dunemeister]

And they embrace innumerable mutually-exclusive theisms. If one man claims to be the Lost Dauphin, we may be justified in regarding his claim with skepticism. If thousands of men claim to be the Lost Dauphin, it is even more reasonable to be skeptical of the claim of any particular one.

Fine, but then the beliefs of skeptics are pretty various, too. If it's not a problem for them, it's no problem for theists. I notice you actually neatly avoided my main point, though.

 

[Dunemeister]

Indeed, there is no reliable indication that any evidence of any sort exists.

Well, that's a bit too strong. In fact, about six billion people (at the very least) would strenuously disagree. But perhaps they are simply the benighted masses whereas you are among the elite savants who actually know better. Or not....

 

[Smoke]

Well, that's a bit too strong. In fact, about six billion people (at the very least) would strenuously disagree.

They might strenuously disagree, but they wouldn't produce any evidence.

And I rather doubt that there are "six billion people (at the very least)" who are even theists, much less theists who are prepared to argue strenuously that they have evidence of god's existence.

 

[Smoke]

Fine, but then the beliefs of skeptics are pretty various, too. If it's not a problem for them, it's no problem for theists.

I don't claim to have evidence that there is no god. I claim to be unaware of any evidence that there is a god. The two are not the same.

I notice you actually neatly avoided my main point, though.

If you consider it "extraordinary" for a person to say that he doesn't believe something for which there is no evidence, then your mind must hold a remarkable jumble of implausible beliefs.

 

[Dunemeister]

I don't claim to have evidence that there is no god. I claim to be unaware of any evidence that there is a god. The two are not the same.

I realize that the two claims are not the same. Nor am I faulting you for failing to believe. I'm saying that Christians have a rational, reliable source of warrant for their beliefs (given the truth of Christianity). Therefore, one cannot accuse Christians of irrationality in believing as they do (even such beliefs as the virgin birth, resurrection, the whole nine) without presuming that Christianity is false. Put another way, there is no objection to the rationality of Christianity that is not actually an objection to the truth of Christianity. But if the skeptic wishes to press THAT sort of claim, an argument for the incoherence of Christian belief or something like that will be required. It's not enough to huff and puff about the so-called "irrationality" of Christian belief. If Christianity is true, it's likely rational to believe it in the way Christians do (in the basic way, not as the result of argument/evidence).

If you consider it "extraordinary" for a person to say that he doesn't believe something for which there is no evidence, then your mind must hold a remarkable jumble of implausible beliefs.

You may be losing track of the conversation. You said Christians (theists, actually) make extraordinary claims. I have asked you to specify in what way they are extraordinary. So far, you have not done so. You have said only that their (theists') worldviews are frequently incompatible with other theists. However, the same charge can be laid against non-theists. There are a bewildering array of incompatible belief systems compatible with being a non-theist. So should I doubt non-theism simply because non-theists are inconsistent about what they do in fact believe? That seems a bit implausible.