I have no desire to defend Dawkins's point of view. I don't even know what it is. And I don't want you to defend Robertson's, since I already know enough about him. They are not in this discussion.

Shall I take it then, that you also can't explain the rationality of believing things for which there is no evidence? If you don't think about the rationality of your belief, why are you in this discussion?

I will say that a lot of things that many Atheists say do not seem rational to me.

What are those things and why don't you think they are rational? Please be very specific. Let's discuss the relative merits of each argument.

I'm tired of a general discussion that goes nowhere -- either there is logic involved or there isn't. If there isn't, that's fine, but that is what this whole discussion is about. There's not much difference between saying "there is no rational explanation" and saying "rationality isn't important to me". Either statement brings us back to the concept that it is irrational to believe as fact the specific tenets of any religion.