When there's no evidence proving or disproving something, it isn't logical to take sides.

That's not true. If the proposed is absurd, it's not logical to remain on the fence. The logical standpoint is to dismiss the claim until evidence is presented. Since no evidence was presented, the claim should be dismissed.

Theists weasel their way out of this by claiming you can't "prove" god, but that's a scientific error/logical fallacy. If something cannot be proven, it also cannot impact the world in any way, shape or form. At that point the question becomes entirely meaningless and should be dismissed as well, because god existing or not doesn't change anything anymore.

You seem a little stuck on the whole "knowing" part. Consider this: do you know if the sun is hot? Science knows it is, but do you? You could choose to believe in the scientific evidence, that still requires some "belief". After all, you've never actually touched the sun yourself. You know sunlight is hot on your skin, but can you infer from that that the sun itself must be hot? Maybe the invisible unicorn with a liver tumor is shining an invisible heat lamp on you when you stand in the sun. You can't prove this isn't the case, but you still know it's bullshit. You know the sun is hot.

You can believe that the universe was created by an invisible completely absent sky-daddy who demands worship that created Earth in particular because we're super-special in the universe, whose actions and values are perfectly encapsulated in insert-holy-book here, and obviously all those thousands of other holy books are complete nonsense. But to me, that notion is completely absurd. Therefore, I know that this isn't the case, just like I know how Earth isn't wrapped up in a giant snake, or how I know brains aren't doughnut-shaped, or how I know that tomorrow my legs will detach from my body, grow legs themselves and run a marathon.

Perhaps ask yourself this: what do you know? Why do you know it? Can you prove that at no point in your chain of evidence a secret azure pony hasn't messed with the evidence, or your memories, or anything else?

Your conclusion could be that you don't know anything. In that case, you should reevaluate what constitutes "knowing" something for yourself. Then you should reapply your new definition of "knowing" to the question of gods existence. I think you'll find it hard to come up with concrete reasons to treat that question differently from the other absurd hypotheticals I've listed. This lack of concrete reasons is why I know god does not exist. Otherwise, for me, "knowing" has no meaningful definition anymore.