[Smudge]

Yes, apologies. I misunderstood your meaning. I also think we interpreted dhechols's post slightly differently. (I did not assume he was actually making the argument that "one can't be both a scientist and a believer in God" -- I thought he was just hinting at a cognitive dissonance between being a scientist and holding a faith, which is a slightly different line of discussion.)

Your other point:

> "You can't choose camp A with no supporting evidence, and then decide that you are more rational or superior to people in camp B because they lack evidence."

Whoever said I chose camp A? This line of reasoning excludes the possibility of an option C (or D, E, F, etc). Again, argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are shifting the burden of proof and appealing to ignorance. ("There is no proof, therefore they are both equally subjective.")

How about, instead, "there is no proof, therefore we don't know or claim to know." Seems more rational than any of the other options, at least to me.

(Sure, nobody's 100% rational, so we could keep picking these arguments apart all night. I'm happy to agree on a simple "we don't know" for anything not empirically based on the evidence of the senses.)