Ah, no. The scientific method does require us to attempt to find proofs for the non-existence of entities, because its not doable and thus not reproducible.
To be sure there's no God in creation you'd need to assay all of it, to get around a problem pointred out by Robert Graves (One of his Roman emperors notes that the Jews are monotheists because their God lives in a box in their temple and refuses to come out, and so he never meets other gods. He doesn't see them, so He thinks they don't exist, so their god is an atheist.) and even then you have the problem that God might be mobile and so he can circle round you while you are looking for him in a sort of game of cosmic peek-a-boo.
Science doesn't generally require the proof of non-existence, because its so difficult to measure non-existence on an infinite scale. God could live in a box on the moon of an unnamed planet circling a distant star. To check each star to see if this is true or not is not, however, scientific. Occam's razor saves us from such absurdities.
No, as a contributor pointed out, no interest in collecting stamps is not a phillatelic position. A belief about religion is not a religious belief any more than me thinking football is pointless is an involvement in football.
And I rant now...
I quite like Dawkins. I used to be very "do whatever you like, no-one has a right to criticise", but more and more in my daily practice of answering people's questions in the library I'm seeing people who do the dumbest things because charlatans have flogged them books that say "God will heal you of cancer if you pray hard." or "Herbs are the go for medicine - an international conspiracy has hid their usefulness".
I think my breaking point was when I had a cluster of people all come in looking for Fountain of Gold, which is a book about how you can cure all sorts of illnesses ny drinking your own urine. I put it on hold for them, but its a book I always hate shelving. "This is the book read by people who think that urine is good for you." I think, "Do they wash their hands?"
I prefer Penn and Teller because they come at it with some humor, but since I've moved to the city from the bush I see more and more people who are just piled higher and higher with faith-based medicine, faith-based-science, and faith-based economics and so I quite like that there is someone out there who says there's a point at which "I'm doing X for my religion, and therefore you can't say X is just damn stupid." no longer works as an argument.
I don't mind religious people: I had a relative who went in for all that cane toad licking new age stuff for a while (and I do mean that literally, I'm not implying that all new age people lick toads, but I'm saying you can get high on bufotoxin and I know people who used to boil them up), but the town I'm in is glitzy and sleazy and there's a lot of religion that's just product.
I could write better religions for these people, as could most Ars Magica SGs, with fewer plot holes, and so I don't mind Dawkins saying, effectively that the emporer has no clothes.
and so my rant concludes... 8)
In previous editions, there was the option that God was a big faerie: indeed in Shamans this is pretty much stated this, and then that was taken back as POV.
I know some people want an Ars universe where you can just be human and get free of God. I'd argue that House Criamon thinks they can do this. I'd also argue that they are cosmoligically wrong in the setting, because God owns the chessboard and your character is just a piece.