The major proof of the inexisrence of God

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't deny the importance of the scientific disprove but it has at least two weak points:
1) it does not totally disprove the existence of God,it recognizes it's limits and therefore has to recure to pathetic examples as the chamber pot of Bertrand Russell spinning (and dripping)in space
2)it has little influence on the common believer for whom science is an area far away from his understanding.

My answer to 1: It does not totally disprove the existence of God because to do so would be unscientific. To postulate KNOWING 100% that there is 'no God ' when you DON'T and for the time being at least CAN'T IS weak. Because its unscientific and can even cause problems. Not believing in God for scientific reasons - what we understand to be scientifically true - IS NOT weak.
My answer to 2: Yes, believer's often have trouble understanding science (at least on the fact that belief in the supernatural is a false belief for scientific reasons) but how else would you go about helping them also understand your point of view as well?
Simply telling them? If you can't do it without science, how else can you persuade them while still remaining scientific and undogmatic yourself and staying true to scientific truth? And to probability?
God isn't currently disproved so its false to behave as if he is. It is however scientifically accurate to say he's about as close to being disproved as possible, without actually being 'disproved'. That's not really any weaker than him being absolutely disproved because the difference is so small, and in fact its probably stronger (for the time being at least) because he ISN'T absolutely disproved and we DON'T know he doesn't exist.
As far as we know.