Russell was suggesting that belief in God is similarly irrational - and many people since have made similar arguments, comparing belief in God to, for example, belief in a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" who created the world. In reality, belief in a Creator (a God) is nothing like believing in the things mentioned above. Because while there is good evidence that a Creator exists, there is no evidence for the celestial teapot or flying spaghetti monster.
It's no good simply mocking other beliefs in order to establish your own - you have to engage with the evidence.
For example, if (as many atheists claim) this universe is ultimately nothing but dead, lifeless particles and energy, why are you conscious of your own existence? Even if a very complex collection of dead atoms could (by some natural process like evolution) come together and form something that acted as though it were aware of its own existence, a collection of dead atoms could never be aware.
But we are!
How do you explain that according to natural forces? It seems to me that this one fact alone practically demands a supernatural explanation. And that's just the start of the evidence we have to consider!
People can use silly arguments to casually dismiss God (I've done it myself) but, as the 1st century Christian, Paul, put it, God's "invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20).
We all have to reckon with "the things that have been made" - the universe itself; us; our conscious self-awareness; our sense that some things are objectively right and wrong, etc.
If we're going to wrestle with the big questions, let's wrestle with the evidence, not the flying spaghetti monsters.
Note: more on this here.