Absolutely not

The whole point of science is to explore and refine one's understanding based upon what is discovered.

My explorations has resulted in the opinion, an invisible, all powerful, critter, makes no sense.

I don't even give a damn.....there is not one. I am 100% sure......?????????

That depends on whether or not you mean 100.000000%. (A significant figure joke).

Atheism doesn't proclaim 100% certainty that there's no god, it states that there's insufficient evidence to support the idea that gods of any kind exist. Seems a rational position to me.

Being I am currently out of f in my case I don't give a f but I don't have one ?

Being 100% certain of anything goes against the scientific method.

If someone is actually taking the position that a god or gods cannot and do not exist, and they can prove it, then yes, that does go against the scientific method. Just for starters it runs into the problem of the logical impossibility of proving a negative. But literally only one atheist I've ever known has made this claim.

Every other atheist I've met (and me for that matter) takes the position that we haven't seen enough evidence to support belief in any god, or been given a good enough reason to believe without evidence, and without those things we do not believe. Produce evidence or good reasons and we'll change our minds, no problem. We still may not worship (that's a separate issue) but given evidence we will believe. Which is consistent with the scientific method.

But the big problem with your question is that it mixes apples and oranges in suggesting that something confined to what's natural (the scientific method) can be used to investigate something defined as supernatural (god). As others have pointed out, the scientific method requires things to be falsifiable, testable, repeatable -- and the god hypothesis is none of these.

From problem solving perspective: Prove God existance.... Answer: What for? (Problem solved)

Either data is too scarce or too diverse for it point to the conclusion of a deity. They all point in different directions.

The existence of a divinity is a question that can't be falsified, because the gods follow the "dragon in the garage" way of being defined, so you can't use scientific method in them.
So it is impossible to demonstrate existence as they have no measurable interaction with reality, and all claimed interactions have other explanations.
Plus you can't prove a non existence.
What we can say that if a god exists it is a god that actively hides itself and if it acts, it disguise its actions in a sea of randomness. So it's is by definition impossible to know who it is, what it wants or what is the extension of its powers.
Thus my conclusion is that if a divinity exists, it is just a waste of time and resources to try to align with this god that perfectly hides itself to a point that is indistinguishable from a non existent god.
And this is the agnostic position.

Physicist Albert Einstein and his talk of time dilation and length concentration. I also like the things given by Newton, Sagan, Tyson and a few other physicists!