No... not refuted indefinitely. However, the only source that predicts God's nature or tells us anything about him is... religion.
So, God isn't refuted indefinitely; but the only source speaking of God is religion; AND you ask people to abandon religion...
What you're saying is not just that God isn't proven or is disproven; not even that God cannot be proven; but that God ought not to be proven.
However, until I believe in God, or even the aliens for 100% sure, it all needs to be proven.
But I'm not preaching to you. I answered a question from a newbie OP. So why are you preaching to me?
Am I going to start putting garlic and crosses all around my house so that vampires won't come in, just because they might exist? No.
But people eat healthy, do exercise, quit smoking, vaccinate, keep their homes clean, just because they might get ill.
People buy guns just because they might need to defend. People save money just because they might have expenses bigger than their income some day. People make their homes resistant to fire, flooding, tornadoes and hurricanes, and earthquakes just because they might happen and destroy a weaker home.
How is that any fewer faith based?
Yet, as I said before, there's not even one defining answer from the theists as to what God is. What are his properties and attributes? How can something be so powerful, know everything, and control everything?
And there is not one defining answer from science either, as to what the totality of things are. All the scientific disciplines have huge areas of ignorance. We seem to be getting better at obtaining new answers, but even then, good scientists will always recognize that we may never get to know everything there is to know, even within a single discipline.
It's almost as if human intellect was severely limited.
And yet, I don't treat the current lack of answers describing everything, and their seeming future impossibility, as a reason to be contemptuous towards science and declare it invalid, or even to doubt its present conclusions when they seem to fit the observable reality well enough.
And why call the creator "God" at all unless you believe in a defined religion which calls him such?
When the first Atomic Theory was proposed, it said that atoms were indivisible and indestructible, and that their properties to interact with each other depended on their shape.
Now we know protons, neutrons and electrons are an inferior level of units which make up what we call atoms, that they can be destroyed by radioactive decay, nuclear fission, ionization, and matter degeneracy; that they all have essentially the same shapes; and that they interact with each other through electromagnetism and electronegativity.
But why call the intermediate stage between molecules and protons "atoms" at all unless you believe they're indivisible, indestructible, and interact because of their shapes?
Why call the sexual desire for little girls "pedophilia" unless you fit Kraft Ebbing to the last iota? Why call the process of befriending a little girl "grooming" unless it ends in rape? Why call the political systems of our countries "democracy" unless they are ruled by a general assembly of all of the adult, natural born, free males, and only the adult, natural born, free males? Why call Elizabeth "Queen" if she cannot declare war and raise taxes? Why call the New York "Yankees" if they play with Southerners and Latin Americans in their rooster? Why call a mobile phone "cell" if it isn't made of a gazillion eukaryotic units?
They assume God exists, and fail to even entertain briefly any other possibility.
Ok, let me walk through my wall. Let me drop a pot of boiling water over myself. Let me go play in traffic. I'll tell you the results.