"God isn't an empirical entity -- it's not a claim that there is one more thing for science to discover."
Well, says you.
There you are, you see - in order to defy the need for evidence you already need to have at least that start of the idee fixe of what god "is", before you've even looked for it. This doesn't work if you take as the starting point that "god" isn't necessarily anything, because it's made up unless you show otherwise - and, lest this was missed earlier, it is up to the person making the positive assertion to provide this. Not the one denying it.
Put any other debatable supernatural phenomenon in the assertion above to see how silly it is. If I said "the Easter Bunny isn't an empirical entity" and required everyone to believe in it despite the lack of evidence, this wouldn't be very fair. If I want people to believe in the Easter Bunny, I need to tell them why. I can't prove it exists, but you'd expect some objective evidence. I can't just witter on about it being some manifestation of a vaguely sinister, yet benevolent leporid deity which bestows its kindness upon the human race through the annual distribution of ovoid confectionery and leaves one with an all-embracing sense of well-being through the twitching of its invisible nose.
All very well, you may say, but that's just "making up names" - but that is all "god" is for someone who is not contained within the narrow framework of "faith". It's just a name. A word. It might as well say crzzlrdlwjjk.
(We don't look for evidence that justice is worth seeking? I think we do. You can find evidence, if you want to. You can also find evidence against it, I'm sure. You can present both sides and have a reasoned debate about concepts of social models, anarchy, the effects of punishment versus (or alongside) rehabilitation, etc., etc. Plenty to go on there.)