Yeah, that's the confirmation bias which affects everyone. We focus on evidence that confirms our beliefs, and ignore or downplay disconfirming evidence.

However, David Hume's point about induction was that natural experiences are objectively more plentiful than supernatural ones, which is why even religious people call the latter "miraculous." To say they're miraculous is in part to say they're rare. Natural laws are just the regularities that account for the most common patterns we perceive.

The natural regularities that even the religious person experiences are so common she ignores them in taking them for granted. Their number is astronomical. Sure, a religious person could add a theistic gloss every time she picks up a fork or walks up the stairs, but she'd pretty much be a crazy person unless those theistic interpretations were arbitrary and superficial. To think that all normal experiences are something like direct signs from angels or gods is to be in the grip of a mental illness.

I've written another long response to Sentell's other article on the epistemic reasons why atheists and theists disagree, and it will be coming out in a week or two.