Working backwards.

[Mystic]

One way to approach religion is to say, all sects of a particular religion have no proof, and the religion itself has no proof, and all this is true because God has no proof.

Another way to approach religion is to say, if there was a god, what religion would be most probably true, and if that religion was true, which sect has proof for their stance. And you can then verify which sect would have proof for the particular religion, in which, then you would know which instance of the religion actually true represents it and hence makes the proper arguments for it. 

How about no.


Lets suppose a radioactive squid lives just outside your front door.

Now consider what colour might this squid be?

Some think brown others blue.

I move more towards a simple beige myself.

That's how you sound.

Most Atheists say they don't believe God doesn't exist but don't know if he exists.  Why take a side of the fence before investigating? 

To say there are no proofs of God is a tall claim. Never seen an Atheist justify that but just say it would be presented to humanity and there would be no Atheists if there were some. But I think that is a weak argument. 

At the very least, if you wish to say there is no evidence to God, you should consider the approach that I talked about.

---

Another approach is to avoid religion entirely. I'll consider your approach when you consider mine.

Tried it for a bit. The questions essential to humanity and the very foundations of who they are began to break in my mind, the fabric that life is based upon, was questioned. It was then that I realized some holy teachings and understood the emphasis of what was emphasized on. 

It was then I began to scent Prophethood, and understand the argument for a door to enter by.

---

One way to approach religion is to say, all sects of a particular religion have no proof, and the religion itself has no proof, and all this is true because God has no proof.

Another way to approach religion is to say, if there was a god, what religion would be most probably true, and if that religion was true, which sect has proof for their stance. And you can then verify which sect would have proof for the particular religion, in which, then you would know which instance of the religion actually true represents it and hence makes the proper arguments for it. 

How about no.


Lets suppose a radioactive squid lives just outside your front door.

Now consider what colour might this squid be?

Some think brown others blue.

I move more towards a simple beige myself.

That's how you sound.

Another problem with your counter argument:

It works for everything trivial, but God by definition is the being who deserves to be valued and centralized the most in our lives.

So your analogy would be true of everything trivial or non-beneficial.

But as God can the most beneficial and most thing to be valued, then the counter argument fails.