Braz, you used an explanation of rational that is not meant for the context we use it in. Wiki has a page for our use of the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
Even wiki states that our context of rationality should not be confused with the rationality you linked to. When one sees toys appear on Christmas morning, he believes in Santa because of Empiricism. He believes what he sees and is presented with. When one applies reason to this belief and
wonders how Santa can manage to visit every house in the world in one night, he is being rational. He is engaging in critical thinking. Skeptics incorporate both an empirical and rational view.
Yes it's true that a person can use whatever world view they have to rationalize things. In this context it means to lie to yourself as a method of cognitive dissonance reduction. When someone says they believe in Santa because he shows up with presents every year and they don't want to jeopardize that by questioning it, they are rationalizing, but not being rational.
If you are upset that Pad listened to my appeal and not yours, when they both essentially said the same thing, then perhaps you should construct a better argument instead of faulting Pad. You seem to be discounting his contempt, while I suggested he simply find a more effective(refined) and less strenuous way to apply it. The reasoning behind religious beliefs and the level of influence it has over our lives is contemptible, but that contempt can be constructive instead of alienating. Note that belief in bigfoot does not evoke the same level of contempt, because bigfoot believers do not judge or push or attempt to influence political and public policies. They simply try to get their information out there while continuously searching for more answers.
