It is kind of weird to hear someone more-or-less claim I need to choose sides on this issue. For me, I guess it takes some real honesty to say "Hey, I do not know what to believe. I do not think it is 'provable'. But continue. Explain your ideas."
It's prudent to be questioning of things, that's how we come to truthful knowledge in the end. Your line of thought seems to reflect a sort of epistemological skepticism, which is fine. It's been debated for hundred of years whether we can 'know anything for sure' but clearly there are some things; mathematics says we can. Formal proof is something considered to be incontrovertible. Yet there are other types of proof, as has tried to be shown in the thread. Proof by logical consistency or proof by weight of evidence is accepted in the scientific and philosophical community. Scientists gather as much evidence as they can regarding a 'theory.' This multifaceted weight of evidence can never be 100% true, since there seem to be exceptions to everything. But science works in such a way as it is always adaptive, meaning it is self-redefining method of growing consistency and accuracy. If a piece of evidence comes up that makes a theory obsolete, scientists are charged with redefining the parameters of the theory so that the new evidence fits.
A perfect example is Newtonian vs. Einsteinian gravity. Newtonian dynamics fail at the subatomic and supermassive level and we knew this for years. Einstein redefined the theory of gravity and now it includes supermassive objects. It doesn't mean that Newton was 'wrong;' we still use it in our space program for satellites and it does work most of the time... his theory was just incomplete. Someone will inevitably come along and redefine it yet again, making it even more accurate. So you are right when you say that science doesn't 'prove' anything. It doesn't. But just like a criminal trial when there is so much evidence before you that there is no reasonable doubt involved, scientific theory still points to the causes of phenomena fairly accurately.
Why does someone find it necessary to be "full-on god-haters"?
Why do I need to participate in that thinking, if I choose not to participate. Hate is rational?
I don't hate anyone. I used to be a Christian so if I hated Christians or religious people then I would be hating a part of myself; a very significant chunk of my personal history. What I do hate, and have no tolerance for, is credulity. Credulity in my case lead to fundamentalism, emotional problems, and loss of personal responsibility...things I think any rational person would like to have removed from their life.
Again, the people I respect the most (just for me personally), are the ones that explain their main-stream thoughts -- and at the same time -- can give acknowledgment that it cannot be 100% proven. They are open-minded and honest with themselves (in my view). The people I admire the least are the militant "science says it is true" believers. I ask myself, why do they feel such a strong need to convince everyone that "there is no god". I am certain that they to not have 'proof', just ideas and theories.
That's all fine and well, you can operate according to your own principles...no one is saying you can't. But realize that the car you drive, the plane you take, the tools you use, the clean food you eat, the calculator you use, the computer you are typing on, the satellite TV you watch...are all a result of science not knowing anything is true.
Science isn't the end-all, be-all of everything. It isn't a philosophy of life as some have claimed in the thread...it's just a method for discovering empirical facts...and it is imperfect. But it's a better and more rational method than mere postulation because of the fact it is disprovable, as some have mentioned.
Not only that, but by definition science cannot answer the god question because theism is not a scientific claim. What we are trying to do is shed light on is the notion that it seems unreasonable to assert things that cannot be proved or disproved because it's just an empty assertion. It's just an opinion. Furthermore, it can be argued quite well that theistic claims aren't even in the realm of epistemology. They can't be known. But just because 'theistic claims can't be known' it does not follow that 'nothing can be known.'
Personally, I don't know for certain that there is no god. I simply reject the arguments that have tried to make a case because they either don't make logical sense or don't carry evidence to support them. If someone could formally prove through mathematics the existence of god or show me some consistent evidence than I would have no choice but to agree. Until then, I will prudently remain skeptical of all unsupported claims.