Does lack of proof mean that you shouldnt consider God real?

Christians consider God as real.

They justify it in two ways:

1. They say that they have proof, just that other people dont understand such proof.

2. They say that there is no proof, but that they can consider God as real even without proof.

1 is obviously false, because Christians never presented any clear proof of God.

Now, lets talk about 2.

There are these options:

1. If we have no proof that X exists, then we shouldnt consider X real.

2. It is false that "If we have no proof that X exists, then we shouldnt consider X real".

Christians who think that they should consider God real even if they have no proof for God's existence, they must defend position 2, since position 2 is the negation of position 1, and position 1 is negation of Christian position.

To make it simple, they must defend that sometimes people should consider things as real without proof.

Then they must explain why position 2 works with Christian God, and not with any other God or unproven being.

But thats exactly the point. 

Christians are more likely than atheists to believe in all kinds of assumptions and fictions. Christians are more likely to believe in demons, monsters, spirits, ghosts, vampires, political lies, conspiracy theories...

It seems that abandoning proof as a requirement for something to be considered real sends you onto the slippery slope of the magical world where things are considered real with no proof except pure imagination, fiction and assumption.

Of course, one can consider something as real without proof. But should one really do that?

My Great Cousin once said, “The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.”

I think there's reasonably clear proof of God, but atheists deny all terms and conditions so they hold on at best to plausible deniability. 

You should philosophize on the after life more. There's a growing number of atheists who believe in the afterlife but most of the time they r completely idiotic/irrational

I am kinda hoping that there is no afterlife.

Before my first memories, all I remember is nothing. So thats probably how the afterlife will go.

GOD principle sound.

Floaty about bloke, not so.

Christian ideas are what they are.

There are other ideas.

We await the return of omni floaty bloke.

It's possible that the mass deposits a sort of afterlife remnant of purposeful matter.

Though on the other hand........

Surely, you'd think that a straw man argument is silly by now? 

Proof is a wonderful word.  It's not the proof that is the issue, it's the standard of proof that people accept. 

I suggest there is NOTHING but proof for the existence of God.  But what is the evidence that you would accept? That is the question.  

I take the view that you do believe that God exists. Yet you hold the truth of this down. In other words, you suppress it. 

To believe that God exists without doing so, would require you to admit the authority of God. It would be to admit what you are in relation to God? And it would be to admit that God doesn't just appear because you ask him to. He is not a little puppet you can simply request to prove he exists.  

This puts him into an altogether different category to the so-called other gods in this universe.  Each of them is supposedly eager to prove themselves. To humans????

Hence, I disagree with your first statement. There is nothing but proof. And those who refuse to accept it - DO KNOW and UNDERSTAND such proof - they just refuse to accept it.  You suppress the truth. And that helps you sleep at night. 

The second statement you falsely attribute to Christians is nonsense.  Talk about arguments of straw?????