What you're missing is that "evidence" is purely subjective. It depends on criteria that are purely subjective. I'm guessing that you think they're objective; you're wrong. There's no such thing.

EDIT: "The rational choice is to not incorporate something I have no evidence or knowledge about."

NO. That is NOT the "rational choice." You really need to understand this, because critical thinking is in really short supply.

The rational choice is not (a) to incorporate something you have no evidence or knowledge about, or (b) to NOT incorporate something you have no evidence or knowledge about. Neither position is rational. If you don't understand that, you don't think critically; and, make no mistake, there are people in positions of power who do NOT want you to think critically. Thinking critically is a subversive act, today.

The rational choice is to say, "I do not have sufficient evidence to include the existence of God/werewolves/demons/witches/magic within my view of the world. On the other hand, I am NOT saying that these things do not exist."

THAT, my friend, is reasonable. There is no "last word" in science; science is perenially open minded. If you ask an intellectually-honest man whether or not he believes in fairies, he should say, "Well, I've never seen one, or run across evidence that they exist. So, for my money, no, I don't believe they exist. But I could be wrong." That's the scientific, rational attitude one should take toward the existence of God.