There are two main branches of disbelief: Agnosticism and Atheism. Agnostics seem to be the content passive branch who say "We don't know if there's a God or a life hereafter." Atheists on the other hand are the militant branch of unfaith. They're not content to say "I don't know.". They actively deny God's existence. This is believing something without facts - something called faith. So why is the faith of the atheist any different than the faith of the believer?
It's an issue of probability. No atheist will ever prove that God does not exist because you can't prove a negative. In other words, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For the believers or fence sitters however, humanity may some day be able to prove that God exists. Or God may choose to reveal himself* at some point. However unlikely either of these scenarios are, it is higher than zero which is the odds of proving nothing. Furthermore, if believers are right, it stands that there's a reward for that belief, be it this life or the next. If atheism is correct, then there's no reward for belief and no punishment for disbelief. So why the fervor to ridicule other forms of belief? Nobody is stopping atheists from believing in nothing, and if nothing is all there is then prayer is just words and baptism is just water.
So if you don't believe in God, be an agnostic, because in the face of no evidence it's better to claim ignorance than knowledge. But if you must claim belief without evidence, claim the side that can give you comfort, fellowship and sense of purpose or if you're purely in it for the math, some non-zero chance of mattering if right. Look at it like the lottery. Winning may seem like a long shot but hope heals the soul and the odds of winning are even lower if you don't play at all.
footnotes
*yes, I prefer the sexist pronoun. Deal with it.
