Stop trying to use a hammer to fix a watch -- you are ignoring all the details of substance. A rational belief is one with non-null priors (e.g. children falling down stairs) and therefore it is reasonable to use this as an assertion. An irrational belief is one with one or more null priors (e.g. purple aliens stole my dog) and therefore cannot be reasonably used in an argument UNLESS you can prove that the priors are non-null (e.g. provide solid evidence that purple aliens even exist). These are the rules for "reason" in any rigorous sense. They do not change when one of the priors is "God", "Marxism", or any other arbitrary concept.
In your above statement, you've confused making a rational assertion with an irrational assertion. If the assertion is rational in the sense that it has all non-null priors, then it is reasonable for anyone to believe it. And even if they don't believe it, it is reasonable for you to use it in an argument as long as they accept that there are no null priors. This is "reason". If there is even one non-null prior, it is not reasonable for someone to believe it, and expecting that they should is unreasonable. Whether or not something happened is immaterial to whether or not it is rational for any one else to believe you. I could tell everyone that I saw my truck levitationg in my garage, and maybe I really did, but that does not constitute a reasonable assertion to most people and the onus is on me to prove that such things are possible.
That is not null, millions of people have "seen" that very thing happen on television.
The door opened in any event, and on February 2 they drove in Iraq. The tapes Alpert and DeLeo brought back show an eerily empty highway to Baghdad, with the occasional bombed-out truck floating past the car window.
And I hope that you would agree it is not reason which determines what will be your no null prior. Reason can play with what it puts on the table, but it is not reason which decides what is permissible for consideration. The operations of the mind including reason do not work independently. They depend on the senses, but also memory and will.
Let's say you did see your truck levitating in the garage. Is it necessary to prove it to someone else in order for it to be true?
In that case then, it seems to me that 'natural selection' is also nonsense. You cannot see it, touch it, feel it or make love to it.