(For example, there is substantial empirical evidence against the beliefs of creationists, but there is no empirical evidence for or against the possible existence of a non-material creator, only against what various humans have ascribed to that creator.) Some beliefs can be dismissed as irrational in the sense that they don’t fit with currently established and verified knowledge but others cannot be so easily eliminated (your aunt’s belief, for example). Under these conditions I claim that the only rational position is suspension of judgment—neither accepting not dismissing a belief, although one can express opinions on its probability of being correct.
While I generally agree about suspension of judgment, that’s only part of the issue. The choice whether to suspend that judgment is only necessary because believers make untestable propositions about the universe. It’s an artificial conflict created purely by the structuring of the propositions to preclude either proving or disproving evidence. If a proposition about the universe cannot be tested or repeated or falsified, then it’s a disservice to both science and humanity to even make the proposition.