What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)

[Esquilax]

I do contest this statement, however:
"Meanwhile, the scientists just kinda put their observations and hypotheses out there for everyone to test, and have a easily researchable track record of retracting those same hypotheses when they're proven to be wrong."

In my opinion, this only applies to disciplines that can be done again and again and you will get roughly, or always the same results every time.  I agree that a recorded track record would be plausible here.
However, it gets fuzzy when they try to tackle on as something as illustrating how the universe could be formed. The problem with astrophysics is that it is highly abstract and simply built upon mathematical models scientists have created and have to jump through hoops (like projecting constant variables) to make it even be a well-developed theory.  On top of that, these mathematical model can't be actually disproven without any superior, empirical evidence that would suggest otherwise.  Sure there might be more scientists who come up with another model of how it COULD happen, but it's still a theory and therefore doesn't disprove the preexisting ones.  

Well, sure, but you don't think the scientists acknowledge all that? They do, you know: the general consensus of the physics community, beyond the mathematical models and theoretical ideas, is that at present we aren't even fully equipped to discuss the concepts most likely involved in universal origins, for a number of reasons. We'll need, in all probability, an entirely new set of terms, nearly a whole new language, to properly explore what happened before and during the onset of our current universe; it is, after all, a state of being entirely unlike anything we've ever experienced. You should read some of those cosmology papers sometime, the conclusions almost uniformly state that, even among the more well known theorems in the field.

Besides that, science is conducted with the understanding that what it explores is probabilistic, working only with the information currently available and not binding certainties. When you say that we can't be certain as we're lacking empirical data, you aren't saying anything new, you're actually stating one of the basic principles of the scientific method, that what you see is based only on what we currently know, and is not an absolute.

Ultimately though, the question is this: you have on the one hand a set of theories created by some of the sharpest minds we currently have, based on all of the data currently available to us, and with that data and the inferences they draw from it on full display for you to see at any time. On the other hand, you have an unverifiable idea based on faith, where none of the data is available and the inferences are drawn in service to the conclusion, rather than what the data- which they aren't looking at- represents. Which of those seems most likely to be true at this time?

Why on earth would you pick the latter over the former?