The Impossible Position Of The Non- Sceptic (Second point is my own point but first point has been said by others) -

Firstly, Sceptics do something which is irrational.
Sceptics presume that, before they have found a rational scientific explanation for something, there must be one.
Or in other words before they have discovered something to be false, they presume it to be false.
But it is only rational to presume that, until something has been proven false, it is true.

For example: Until we have evidence that reality is an "illusion" it is rational to presume that reality is real.
Secondly, a Sceptic will only recognise something as being "Magical" or "Supernatural" if it can NEVER be explained by science and any evidence that a non-sceptic puts forward will automatically be viewed with suspicion and thought of as "something that must have a scientific explanation".

(For example:

Scientist 1: Wow. The results of the double blind test I ran in the the laboratory seem to confirm the existence of Leprechauns.
Scientist 2: You know what this mean don't you?
Scientist 1: Yes, it means I made a mistake somewhere. Leprechauns can't exist.)

That means that a Non-Sceptic would have to wait till the end of eternity (because Never is a long time) to prove that something is supernatural and until that time the Sceptic would feel free to presume, without evidence, that it had "a scientific explanation" while any evidence that the non-Sceptic puts forward will be automatically viewed as fake until it can be proven fake.
Can you see the impossible position that the Non-Sceptic is in?
Imagine, for example, a suspicious wife with a husband who is innocent of adultery and the wife says, "I will presume that you are guilty until I can prove it", if the husband is innocent then she will never be able to prove he is guilty, yet until she finds that impossible proof that he is guilty she will consider him guilty and no ammount of evidence of his innocence would satisfy her because all evidence would be considered "Fake until proven fake".
All a non-sceptic can do is throw their hands up in the air and say, "How can I possibly win against that?".
I know what you're going to say. You're going to say, "This is a strawman argument. Sceptics don't presume anything. Sceptics say that something might be untrue". Thats not a sceptic/ atheist; that's an agnostic. With an agnostic, the court is out until a verdict has been reached; while an atheist is more like a prosecuting attorney in a trial where the accused has no defence (because a) their evidence is automatically viewed as fake until proven fake and b) they have to wait for the thing they believe in to be 'Never' explained by science).