Should Atheism proper include scepticism?

[leo-rcc]

How do you know this is false, what evidence do you have of that?

Let's take the example often spouted by those who say "god" has not been disproven, therefore . . .

I can say "god's an invisible man who follows you around and talks to you, but you can't hear him". It doesn't matter how long that statement goes for or what it was that I made up, just as long as that thing isn't tangible.
So how can we talk about the truth of the matter, considering that neither of us can have physical basis?

That's the point, so how do you get from not known, to proven not to exist?

Easy, we talk about the argument that supports it, because without being critical of that we waste time arguing about nonsense.

---

I'd like to know, what evidence was present to suggest the existence of "god"?

But that was not the issue was it? You want to present the evidence against a god, and all you do now is bury yourself in semantics.