You deal with it by understanding the basic principle that the same facts are open to many different interpretations. We are free to commit ourselves to to beliefs by binding ourselves to them and holding ourselves rationally responsible. Someone's belief in God, such as a Christian theist, is perfectly fine and unless there is an incompatibility to their commitment to Christ and another belief, I see no reasons to believe a rationally responsible Christian has any obligation to revise their beliefs; not unless someone demonstrates how their lives were commitments are incompatible. An example of this would be the evidential problem of evil; I do not find this attempt to make God and evil incompatible successful, as we as the various other attempts.

I think the non-Christian or non-theist is equally in their normative rights. Show how a completely irreligious conception is incompatible with any fact and then it would be sensible to ask how one dods not believe in God; an attempt at this would be arguing that a commitment to moral realism is incompatible with atheism and then, the non-believer in God or moral realism is deontically obliged to uncommit themselves to one of these incompatible doctrines; attempts of this nature have all been failures, at least in my opinion.

The takeaway from this is the obvious truth that there are many equally rational ways to conceive of reality. Simply not believing in God does not commit you to the belief that everyone who believes in God is being irrational. It is just basic humility to not be dogmatic and insist there is only one right way to think about the world; it seems that as long as the world remains religiously ambiguous, there will always be rational theists, rational atheists, and rational agnostics. And tolerating beliefs that you, yourself, do not hold is being respectful and humble.