This is a belittling statement....I'm betting she has more common sense in her little finger than you in your entire body.
And let's face it, some things in this world we simply cannot explain. I think Big Foot is real.
The correct answer when we don't know something is, "I don't know," not "let me offer this unfounded, half-****ed explanation." Personally, I think it is LUDICROUS to state "Big Foot is real." I understand some people believe it, but whether it's true or not is a very real consideration as to whether it is reasonable to believe it, right? It's like saying Elvis is still alive. There are things that, if they are not true, are ridiculous to believe. Yes, there are grey areas, but in the end, IMO, atheists treat ALL such areas as, "unless there is a good reason to do so, I do not believe." In that way, there is no such thing as "belief," there is knowledge, and lack of knowledge. To believe, by definition, is to hold something as true without sufficient evidence (essentially, belief and faith are equivalent).
A believer and an atheist have a VERY hard time co-existing. It goes far beyond simply "religion" or "is there a god." It has to do with HOW someone thinks and sees the world, sees every question. When one person operates on evidence and knowledge, and another person is willing to operate on faith, belief, construed "evidence," etc..., and those two people are trying to run a household, their economics, raise children, it can be a significant source of friction.
One last note on "belief" - as a critical thinker (IMO, the real "cause" of why I am an atheist), I am still willing to "believe" certain things, but the question becomes, what are the implications of that belief? One may believe there is a Big Foot. Ok, what are the consequences? Maybe none, maybe I simply have the belief, nothing more, ok, so who care if it's actually true? What if it leads me to quit my job, neglect my family, spend all my time in the woods with a video camera? Clearly, holding the belief now has implications and, IMO, now the truth of that belief is vital, and we must pursue that truth in the same way we would anything else, which is to say, the generally accepted scientific method. Evidence, scrutiny, peer review, etc...
This is why I am an atheist: because there is no greater implication than that brought on by belief in a god, so whether or not it is true is of utmost importance. The FACT is, belief in a god completely falls apart under the type of scrutiny, under the levels of proof, that we require for ANY other topic. Moreover, religion frequently specificaly calls us to abandon our demands for proof (Joel Osteen tweeted, "The facts may tell you one thing. But, God is not limited by the facts. Choose faith in spite of the facts."). We purport that a religous belief should be immune to criticism, to questioning, when we don't afford any other type of belief such a luxury. I don't understand that, I can't understand it anymore. If someone is going to attempt to direct my life and sanction my afterlife based on some belief, they better be able to support it with facts, they need to prove its true, and let's face it, no religion will ever be proven "true," not the way we talk about any other truth, and there's no reason religion shouldn't have to use the same definition of "true" as anything else.
I'll wrap up with a simple, wise notion I recently heard: It can't be that every religion is "right," there are too many conflicts for that to be true. Religious doctrine requires you to pick the onr right one, no "bonus points" for believing in A god, but the wrong god. So what's more reasonable, and more likely: that just ONE of them is right and it's the one you picked, or that the reality is, they're all wrong? The old adage is, everyone is an atheist as regards thousands of other religions and gods; atheists just go one farther.