Yes, and it's patently obvious you feel this way. But, as usual, you're cherry-picking your preferred context and deliberately misrepresenting interpretations you don't like.

Let me spell it out for you:

In the face of overwhelming evidence, disbelief is irrational. (Example: a certain population segment and the factual component of evolution, geocentricism, or genuine flat Earthers.) You go where the evidence leads.

In the face of no evidence whatsoever, or significant contrary evidence, belief is irrational. (This is the position you've taken on several points, and this is why we've been calling you on it.)

Belief in proportion to the evidence is rational.

Let me restate: In the face of no evidence whatsoever, belief is irrational. This is true regardless of the substantive claim you choose to accept. "Rare Earth" is irrational. "Lots o'aliens" is irrational. "Somewhere in between" is irrational.

"We don't know, but there's at least one" is both rational and demonstrably factual. "We can hope" is not a substantive claim, but rather a genuine opinion. Opinions are fine. Substantive claims in opinion's clothing are not.

Not that I think you'll choose to understand the distinction, but there it is. Deal.

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.