No, and for several reasons.
The first is the existence of God isn't a theory - it's conjecture. Theories must have evidence and there cannot be evidence for a non-falsifiable concept.
The second is that there are an infinite number of other suppositions and theories - one man's God may be at odds with another man's Shiva. C.S. Lewis believed that all gods were the same (some of the later Narnia books are about precisely this - The Last Battle particularly), which neatly resolved that little problem, only it kinda failed to take into account the fact that it only really applies to monotheism (which in turn only really applies to the varying sects of Christianity and Islam) and that, for that to be the case, at least some part of all holy books claiming to be the undiluted word of their god must be wrong. It's a kind of equal-opportunities offensive concept. Then again, the preamble of the Qu'ran can be summarised as "Nice try, New Testament. The blokes writing it down kinda screwed up though. This is what I, God, actually think."...
The third is that in order to prove the existence of, say, the KJV God by eliminating all other ones, you must disprove non-falsifiable concepts like the Adam Smith God, the Torah God or the Sunni Allah. You cannot disprove non-falsifiable concepts - it's the definition of the phrase.
But, probably most important of all, proving the existence of anything precludes believing in that thing. You cannot "believe" in God if he's standing in front of you, melting heretics and turning Sunny Delight into Drambuie. You can only acknowledge his existence. I don't believe in my dogs...
This is probably the primary issue with the whole thing. No-one who truly believes in their particular breed of sky pixie should ever be seeking to empirically prove its existence, because once proven there can be no belief. The folks who wrote all of the holy books of the monotheistic religions knew this, which is why there's lovely, untestable characteristics of any version of the sky pixie. If it cannot be tested, it cannot be proven nor disproven (there's a colossal logical fallacy in requiring disproof of existence or proof of non-existence) and that means it can be believed. On the same basis, no-one should be attempting to emiprically prove the non-existence of any sky-pixie because it's foolish to try - it's a logical fallacy and you'll never succeed. You can only show that certain parts of certain holy books that underpin the belief are inaccurate (or lies), at which point the defence of allegory ("it's not meant to be taken literally!") pops up and you're fighting to prove non-existence again...
The issue between the two camps arises when either tries to convince the other of their ground. People not of your religion can easily show that parts of your holy book are wrong and thus not the word of God they claim to be. For crying out glaven, all holy books were penned by people so far back in your ancestry they may as well have been lizards as far as you're concerned and they all make basic, demonstrable factual errors that are entirely consistent with our understanding of the universe (at least their understanding of it) at that time. Even if God was dictating the books and physically moving their hand, the books have been translated and retranslated
so many times they could have been penned by a woodpecker with mad cow disease - and in the case of the Bible, selectively turned into an anthology (including the rejection of some books) by a Roman emperor a thousand years since - but they should not underpin your belief either particularly as the OT is widely acknowledged in the Christian world as allegorical anyway. The question at that point is why would anyone believe in the creation myth as stated in the OT - especially literally - when they pay no heed whatsoever to the cleanliness requirements a couple of chapters hence (except the bit about bonking other men)?
Then we have the counter-argument which is far worse. It essentially boils down to "This is very, very complicated physics that I don't understand and because it cannot be explained in a manner I don't understand it must be untrue compared to a simple concept I can understand even though it has no basis in fact.". Religious rejection of cosmological concepts that anyone can watch occurring through a telescope (if it's big enough - the only difference between Hubble and Galileo's first attempt is size, material, manufacturing tolerances and a billion dollars; otherwise it's the same concept) on the basis of it being quite complicated is, frankly, insanity. Religious counter-arguments about the origins of the universe almost always involve a gross misrepresentation of the science involved - generally the Laws of Thermodynamics are invoked and misquoted, about things tending towards chaos and life requiring order - or just plain rejection of it, which is nothing more than just wiping your arse on the whole of science. It seems... ludicrous that anyone would reject a type of science that they don't want to accept while happily using a computer on the internet to do so - eating and drinking ten thousand years of scientific progress and with a dose of acetaminophen for their headache - despite the same principles underpinning every aspect of their daily life that underpin cosmology and quantum physics...
Ultimately, atheists don't really care what you believe in. Or don't. There are some proselytising atheists who want you to not believe in it any more, but largely we don't care. What we do care about is when science is misused and misrepresented (or mistrusted because it's "difficult") to prove concepts that cannot be proven - when known facts about the formation and continuation of our universe, our Solar System, our planet and our species are rejected and rewritten to "prove" a concept that no-one should ever attempt to prove in the first place. When "it's just a theory" is used, in seriousness, as a rejection of knowledge. When people literally lie (or unknowingly repeat lies, to be kind) in order to better represent their flavour of belief system.
No atheist will (should) tell you that there is no species of being with more power than man, or that we understand everything that can be understood, or that it's simply an impossibility that our universe and all others were flicked into existence by an as-yet undefined, overarching power. What we can tell you is that there cannot be any proof or disproof of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God of Abraham as written in the Torah, Talmud, Qu'ran and Bible and that every previous physical limitation that religious leaders have placed on our understanding of the universe has been pushed through and understood. We will tell you that a concept that is not yet understood will be labelled as "not yet understood" and not assumed to be explained by religion, just as has occurred with every previous concept that we have not understood until we understood it.
Belief in any one of the sky pixies - or an otherwise undefined one - is not a preclusion of accepting that which can be shown about our universe (which, as it stands, goes back to about 10^-30 seconds after the Big Bang and covers just about everything we can see from this planet with present technology - there's a couple of gaps which are "not yet understood"). Nor is science a belief system which requires the explanation of everything right now or stand to immediate rejection - even the Amish, as technologically primitive as they are, every day use scientific principles advanced enough that anyone from the first 95% of modern history would not comprehend and reject as magic...
The problem with every single one of those bulletpoints is that it is not a rejection of the science underpinning it, but a rejection of philosophical extensions that come out of it. Rejecting evolution because you think it means you aren't special any more is every bit as arrogant and vain as it is irrelevant. Not one word of it is a valid argument against evolution (in fact a couple of words of it are absolutely and demonstrably wrong), but an argument against rejecting knowledge because it seems complicated - or rather ignoring people who'd reject knowledge because it seems complicated.
I'd address them all, but I'd be repeating myself and this post is already, massively tl;dr.
Sadly you are correct I believe, that kind of thought process seems pretty common. In religious schools that I have attended as a kid this line was taught as well and to question just meant that our thinking wasn't able to comprehend the grand scheme or more often the logical fallacy was simply not comprehended. 
