I will agree that you cannot solely make that assumption, but you must consider the possibility and that's where you have failed.
I don't think you understand this at all. Do you really, honestly think we have not considered the possibility that God is real? Why would we not do that? Of course we've considered that God could be real! More than anything else, an atheist is a person who approaches the subject of religion by weighing the evidence on both sides of the argument with the same amount of vigor and skepticism. And we do that with all religions. The difference is that you don't do that for the Christian God, but you probably do it for all the other ones.
The question YOU have to ask yourself is... could YOU be wrong here? Fact: There are millions of Christians. Fact: There are millions of non-Christians. Do you really think those millions of atheists have NEVER CONSIDERED that God might be real? That's hysterically funny. The opposite is true. It is not the Christian who questions things. It is the atheist.
All experiments begin with assumptions and are followed until the conclusion proves impossible. You haven't even started.
If you believe this, then start with the assumption that you don't know if God is real. And then look at the claims and the evidence for those claims on both sides. Start with something simple...
Claim: God loves everyone.
Does reality show this to be true or not true? First, you have to figure out what love we are talking about. Most Christians would say it's like a father to a child. Alright, well, I'm a father. If God loved everyone even remotely in the way I love my children, then we would expect to see certain things, would we not? While you may say God loves you, does he love the 5 year old who gets raped and killed by a stranger? Does he love the thousands of children who die every day from starvation? Does he love the people with cancer? Obviously, God does not love everyone. Now, you may say that He does, and that we just don't understand it, but the other explanation is that bad things and good things happen naturally all the time. Which is the most reliable theory here? The God theory that leaves a shit load of open questions? Or the natural theory which explains everything without the intervention of an all powerful deity? The most likely answer is obvious.
You can do this with any God claim you want. They all end up as a loss for you.
You have zero evidence that life on earth spontaneously originated without the assistance of God, but you believe it anyway.
Can we not say the same about you? You have zero evidence that life on earth spontaneously originated with God, but you believe it. The thing is, you use this gap in current knowledge and fill it in with God as if it's the right answer by default. It's not. It never has been. When we didn't understand earthquakes and people filled that gap in knowledge by saying it was God's anger, was it right? How about disease? When people didn't understand disease, they filled in that knowledge gap with God's wrath too. Were they right? No, no, no, no. After a billion knowledge gaps have been filled by science, when is it finally OK to say, "You know what? We may not know how this happened right now, but you can be pretty sure it wasn't a magical sky man."
You have zero evidence that we are genetically related to apes, but you believe it anyway. Good science has rightfully taught us that what you believe is not possible.
Now THAT'S completely wrong. In every way.
Two words: Transitional fossils. You'll find yourself sifting through long papers on "the evidence" in the fossil record only to discover that they're lacking at the species level. I'm not lying to you. Take an honest look for yourself.
Maybe what you need to do is really educate yourself about what the actual scientists are saying before you make statements like this. You aren't lying because you honestly believe what you are saying, but that doesn't mean you are saying the truth. Educate yourself. NOT from Christian sources who have everything to gain by telling you what to think. Get your information from sources who have everything to gain by PROVING EACH OTHER WRONG.
And so you interpret the Bible accordingly. A school teacher prays to God for help when confronted by a crazed gunman and is shot to death. This is your evidence that God doesn't exist.
Do you really find that unreasonable? If God is the most powerful being in the universe, capable of literally anything, and he loves us with all his heart, you would think that he might help the teacher by... oh, I don't know, making the gun jam? Having the police break in? Making him trip and lose the gun? While this, in and of itself is NOT evidence enough to make a solid conclusion, it certainly does damage to the idea that God exists, doesn't it? Where does that go awry for you?
If a school teacher prayed to Zeus when confronted by a crazed gunman, and gets shot, does that evidence lead TOWARD the notion that Zeus is real, or AWAY from it.
You've decided that if God exists, He would do what you would do.
Christians say that God loves everyone. If God loved everyone, he would have saved the teacher, right? Sure you could make up any excuse you want as to why God didn't save the teacher... just as I could make up any excuse I want as to why Zeus didn't save the teacher. That gets you nowhere. The obvious fact is that if God is real, he didn't help. And if he doesn't help in situations like that, one possible reason is that GOD ISN'T REAL. Can you really not see this?
My experience with church has proven most people are happy to simply believe what they are told about the Bible.
My experience with atheists has proven they are unwilling to use their superior study and deductive reasoning skills when examining the Bible.
No, whatchamean. It is that very study and deductive reasoning that leads to atheism. You see, when people convert from one religion to Christianity, or from atheism to Christianity, how does it usually happen? Ask yourself that. Is it an in depth use of study and deductive reasoning skills that makes someone say, "Huh, yeah I guess people really can live inside of a fish for 3 days"? Or is it some sort of life altering emotionally charged experience they have? It's the latter. Now ask yourself the opposite. What are the main causes of someone leaving Christianity? Is it an emotionally charged event? A near death experience? No; it is study, logic and reasoning.
Let me ask you this. If you were to go about debunking the Islamic faith, how would you go about it? When you read the Quran and see that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse, what goes through your mind? What do you tell yourself? Do you say... "Well, that could happen", or do you reject it? Eventually, you do reject it, but why? When you've answered these questions, please apply that same reasoning to the bible when it says that Jesus died and rose from the dead 3 days later. It is the SAME reasoning that brings you there. If you read those words in ANY other book, you would reject them outright as false. That is a FACT. It is YOUR reasoning that is faulty when it comes to Christianity. You give a free pass to Jesus walking on water, rising from the dead, etc, but you do NOT accept that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Those are equally ludicrous claims, but you do not treat them equally. We do. And we do because we apply reason and logic the SAME WAY to all religions.
I, personally, have read more books in the past 3 years about the bible than about ANY other subject. I will admit that the vast majority have been written by atheists and agnostics, but I have read a few by Christians. I've read 2 apologetics books, and more recently a book by Ravi Zacharias that wasted a significant amount of my time that I will never get back. I've also read the bible, and I have read many books about the history of how the bible came to be. Please do not try to say that we don't know about the bible. We do. More than the Christians who happily sit in church on Sunday while the preacher fills their heads with shit that they have to swallow unquestioningly. They are sheep. And I feel sorry for them. And for you.
Edit: word substituted