Faith might be very helpful in a psychological way. As long as your believes don't go in the wrong direction.

The real question is: why do people choose to shower such a being with worship?
If this being has the power to create the universe, and those living within it, surely this being could do more to look after its creation. However, this is not the case. This being is more like a deadbeat parent whom does not look after their kids. This being has abandoned its children yet fully expects their worship.

The children look up to this being and wonder why they must thank such a being for the bone cancer it has left them with. Fundamentalists will defend this beings existence and label it the embodiment of all and the eternal example of morality.

The morality of this being is flawed. It expects praise, yet there are people who are homeless, starving, riddled with disease. This does not necessarily apply to adults, children too. There is an insect that has no single purpose but to burrow into the eyes of children. It is something that does not need to exist.
Why should people respect a god that has created so much evil, and so much corruption? This being that deserves no respect begs for the praise of its creations. If you do not thank this being, it will force you into hell. An eternity of misery. Your malevolent being is selfish and sadistic.

Luckily there is no evidence that such a being exists.

Humans will not know why, but rather how. This is the reason for the existence of science. As long as we exist science will prevail. As long as we allow our imaginations to trump our scientific endeavors there will always be a god concept rather than a god that is present to us all at once. Until said god shows up the concept prevails.

There's no proof confirming or denying his existence. So let people believe in what they want to believe in.

That's my take on it anyway.
As long as people don't try to shove their religion down my throat, I respect anyone's beliefs.

I´d ask differently.... Is God's non-existence objectively verifiable?

God is not part of the physical world. There´s no physical way of verify the existence of something that´s not physical..... or its non-existence.
Faith is not related to the things we can see or feel by any of our body senses, but rather about things that transcend the very human nature.

That said.... I´d say that there´s no sense in trying to "prove" or "verify" things that can only be only achieved by faith. And faith is something very, very personal. Or you have it, or you don´t have it.

I think this topic has been discussed a lot in these forums, hasn´t it ?

That's a pretty interesting point of view you bring, even if it has already been brought at this thread. Everyone is hellbent on trying to prove to the rest on how God's existence cannot be proven and how faith is irrelevant in any aspect. It's true that faith has to do with the things we don't see, hence why some people find the concept absurd and ridiculize it, demeaning the personal experiences people have had with faith in the name of evidence and facts. But what can you do?

I agree that this topic has been discussed to death on VGC before, and it's a topic I try to stay away from.

You say this as if people have a choice. I can't just say "I believe" and make myself believe. Could you choose to beleive in Zeus and do it earnestly? How about invisible unicorns, or that th earth is flat?

*sigh*

Why is it that atheists care about religion more than I (a religious person) do?

No. You have to have faith. no proof.

But there are flows in your own explanations.

-  You tell "I'm no scientist", then why do you believe in science ? There are proves, but beyond your understanding, told and written by people you don't know, that you probably never read, but if you would, it would be at a simplistic level that doesn't prove anything. I mean I graduated in a sciences, but I don't know much about Carbon 14, just the basic concept of datation. I've never seen C14 (you can't really even see it in a direct way), I'm not able to understand or prove by myself, but all my knowledge of datation depends on it. Still I'm not a unbeliever, C14 and all, the dinosaurs, the age of the Universe, I believe it to be true... but really, our belief in science and scientists is not very different than listening a priest quoting the Bible, if not faith, at least it's a very high level of trust.

- You tell that "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge", with an analogy to the discover of galaxies, understanding of the moon. But there is a pretty strong chance the understanding of "before" the big bang is impossible, outside the scope of what science can explain. It's beyond observation, probably impossible to simulate, test. So it could really not be a "we don't know yet". We know that science progress, very fast, but we don't know at all were are the limits, we could progress exponentially forever to nowhere.

- "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Sorry but I can seriously write "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used mathematical demonstration and science to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Because you know, Newton calculations are not really a knowledge. They are just that, calculations, models, that happen to work for a limited number of cases, if things are not too fast, or not too big, or not to small. The guy was a genius, and it's good enough to send a rocket to the moon, but it's not a knowledge, a real understanding. Science really accepts to be always proven wrong (at least in the sense that its field of application is drastically reduced), but still there is this strange feeling that science claims any step is dead certain. Do you think Newton said "and I could be wrong in some or even most cases, because I'm working in a such limited set of examples, a bunch of apples, 5 planets, and the moon... and I mean it's the 17 century, come on, we don't even have a laser to measure anything, so don't take me too seriously, I'm not meaning every priest is telling fairytales, next step in science could be that the Earth is flat" ? Everyone is cock sure, theists and atheists, they get it right at any point of the time.

- Science answers to how, not to why. Even if it answers to why, it's in the form of a "how". So, should the scientific method which is basically to understand how, applies to a question that is fundamentally "why" or "is there a why" ? Wether I can feel pain, or I can't, wether I can feel love or not, I don't have a need for science to prove or disprove it scientifically (even if it's great to understand how for medecine). I don't feel there is a God, that's why I'm an atheist. Let's stop BS about someone knowing more that the other... we know nothing and my belief is that we will probably never know anything at a significant level !

+1