A common argument that often surfaces against Theism is, "You wouldn't believe in little green men or Santa Clause, so why believe in God?" What the skeptic is really saying is that belief in God is simple-minded or anti-intellectual, but is it?
The skeptic when arguing in this direction is placing himself as a purveyor of higher knowledge than the Theist. He is saying that belief in God can not be true and must therefore be a contrived fairy-tale. In essence, the skeptic is arguing that he has greater knowledge in the non-existence of God than the Theist has in the existence of God. But, what exactly is the knowledge the skeptic is putting forth? What does knowledge entail?
Knowledge, according to one definition is, "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition." Given this definition, there must be facts and truths present for anything to count as knowledge. When the skeptic compares the Theist position to contrived stories, he is simply arguing from a position of arrogance and ignorance. For when the skeptic claims that Theism is man-made, he is making absolutely no argument from the standpoint of knowledge.
Christian apologetics presents a conglomerate of arguments that culminate together in showing that the Christian God accounts for greater knowledge than the non-existence of the Christian God. Some of the arguments that support the existence of the Christian God include: The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Fine-Tuning of the Universe, Specified Complexity, the information message in DNA, human consciousness, the resurrection of Jesus, and many others. The point is, the Christian position is honest in assuming responsibility when it comes to arguing for its position, whereas, skepticism often makes statements with no intellectual support. If the skeptic wants to bring down the Christian God, it must put forth knowledge-based arguments to show Christianity as a failed worldview.
What counts as knowledge? As the definition clearly states, knowledge involves facts (evidence) and truths. Maybe the skeptic should assume more responsibility in the knowledge realm before making statements not based in knowledge!