"As for the point, I'm surprised that it is necessary to explain that if one is attempting to demonstrate the irrationality of certain atheist arguments, it just might be helpful to show that the very atheists who make them can't even agree upon a consistent, rational definition of what the atheism they are championing is, and to show the broadest possible spectrum of atheism in all its irrational glory."

1. His point is that he is surprised.

2. His surprise is that atheists' positive beliefs span a spectrum.

re 1: I think the claim of surprise is merely rhetorical emphasis.

re 2: VD is being disingenuous, by implying atheists should share a single philosophy.  By now, he is aware that atheists only share a disbelief in deities. 

3. Do Christians have a rational definition of what the Christianity they are championing is?