Belief in God as irrational

I would like to pick up on an idea I developed in the very first post: if the atheist shows that belief that God exists is irrational, what exactly has he shown? The obvious answer seems to be that 1) if belief that God exists is irrational, then any present person who instantiates such a belief is irrational. One could make a stronger claim: 2) anyone in the past or present that has instantiated the belief is irrational. Stronger still: 3) anyone in the past, present, or future who instantiates the belief is irrational. I think as the numbers increase, one's justification for believing the proposition associated with numbers decreases.
Consider 1): whether this claim is true will hinge on some other issues, such as satisfying the total evidence requirement (taking in all the relevant data) and whether the intellectual capacities of the person are relevant to justified belief. First, the arguments against God's existence are not inescapable. The more sophisticated forms of the problem of evil were discovered recently by accomplished philosophers. Before then, they were dealing with the old problem which claimed that God and evil can't coexist. So if it took their minds to discover the new problem, how can we expect the average individual who actually dwells on these issues to come up with the new problem on their own? Apparently then, the issue depends on how accessible the arguments are assuming the person is continually seeking information on the problem of evil - anything which could serve as evidence one way or the other. Obviously there are places in the world where people don't have access to the best incarnations of the arguments against the existence of God. Nor is it reasonable to suspect that if they are continually searching for evidence dealing with the problem of evil, they will somehow discover the new problem of evil. Thus, assuming that the person satisfies the normal demands on justified belief and is intellectually virtuous, their belief in God is justified. Therefore, if the claim "belief that God exists is irrational" means that all present instantiations of the belief is irrational, then the claim is probably false. We can run the same argument more effectively for proposition 2). Thus, if the claim "belief that God exists is irrational" means 2), then there is a greater probability that the claim is false. Finally, for 3), the epistemic problem is knowledge of our own fallibility and the continued revision or abandonment of philosophical theories over time. Keeping our own fallibility in mind and our inability to consider every possible legitimate point for the problem of evil, one can't justifiably think we have said the last word. Thus, the part of 3) which refers to the future theist does not have a very high probability - at least not enough to justifiably compel a strong belief. Also, suppose there aren't any bright theists around at the moment - no philosophers who are theists and no competent theologians to deal with the issue. Clearly, the atheist would have less justification for thinking he has shown 3). But I suspect when atheists deny that belief in God is rational, they are assuming the opposite: there are a few philosophers who can make the debate somewhat competitive.

So then, what could the claim "belief that God exists is irrational" justifiably mean? I suspect it must mean the following: belief that God exists is irrational for those who are aware of the best arguments for and against God existence, and for those who could be aware of those arguments with a reasonable amount of mental application or research. There is another possibility but I think it is irrelevant in the end. Suppose a well published and well known philosopher attends your church and has taught on the arguments for and against God's existence. In fact, he is considered one of the best minds on the topic. You follow the arguments but are not sure what to believe because you know that other very intelligent philosophers disagree. From the point of view of getting justified belief based on the testimony of the member of your church, I don't see how you could be justified in believing that he is right while others are mistaken.

Here is a bigger problem. All of the above reasoning cuts both ways. The atheist could use it to argue that it is not true for all people that belief that God doesn't exist is irrational. But I suspect we want to say that this belief is irrational, especially in light of Romans 1.

What do you think? I am just throwing these thoughts out there so there are probably several places where I am mistaken. Also, I can think of a few objections myself which may jeopardize my theory of justification.