"I am angry"
"prove it"
"how can I prove it? I could hit you or scream, but that could just be 'outward show' "
'if you can't prove it, you aren't angry'
As just one example.
There are things we know, but cannot prove. This fact does not entail that others must now believe these things we cannot prove. It does entail that someone's inability to prove something to us DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean that they are wrong.
Prove, perhaps not.. but there will be ample evidence to suggest that is the case - unless of course you'd claim there's no evidence to show when someone is angry?
Now, as stated many times in this thread - no atheist is saying that lack of evidence means something is ultimately non-existant, but that the complete lack of evidence gives no valid reason for one to believe in that thing - whether it exists or not.
And athiests make this confusion again and again in discussion forums.
It seems the confusion comes from the theists.. again and again.