[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Belacqua]

I never stated that biblical mythology is proof there is no god.

When I read the sentence below, that was the message I got. I apologize if I misunderstood.

Since religious writings do not reflect reality or how the natural world works, it is safe and credible to understand that god simply is not real and never existed except as an imaginative concept in the mind of fallible writers.

It seems to say that because religious writings do not reflect reality, therefore it is safe and credible to understand that god isn't real. But I would argue that it only means that religious writings do not reflect reality. And the issue of the existence of god is separate.

The veritable absence of evidence is what makes god's non-existence a current reality

Currently we have no evidence of alien life. Is this proof of anything? 

It may be true that god's non-existence is a "current reality," but the absence of evidence isn't what makes that true. It's either true or not, independent of the evidence we have. 

The proof that something does not exist is evidenced in its veritable non-existence. 

I don't understand this sentence. 

"veritable" in American English

veritable
adjective

(used to emphasize how great or unusual something is by comparing it to something else): 
If current projections hold, Montgomery County will experience a veritable explosion in its school-age population (= it will have many more students).

veritable
adjective [ before noun ] UK  /ˈver.ɪ.tə.bəl/ US  /ˈver.ə.t̬ə.bəl/

used to describe something as another, more exciting, interesting, or unusual thing, as a way of emphasizing its character:
My garden had become a veritable jungle by the time I came back from holiday.
The normally sober menswear department is set to become a veritable kaleidoscope of colour this season.

You're saying that the proof of a negative -- that something doesn't exist -- comes from the thing's non-existence? I guess that's true, isn't it, as a tautology...? The proof of a thing's non-existence comes from the fact that it doesn't exist. 

But to avoid begging the question, you can't begin with the assumption that it doesn't exist as proof that it doesn't exist. 

The burden of proof, after all, is on the individual making the positive claim of existence; meaning that god's existence needs to be verified by those who claim he exists.

I think the burden of proof falls on anyone making a claim. If you claim "it doesn't exist" then you have a burden of proof. If you make a more careful claim, like "I don't see any evidence of it," then your burden is less. 

But you can't say that because you have so far seen no evidence, then its non-existence is proven. I have so far seen no evidence of extraterrestrial life, which means I can prove -- what?