Aiyaiyaiyaiyai...uh, let's be reeeeal careful about how one goes about making ontological commitments shall we? 
In one sense, I would completely agree with you. Being a certain strand of agnostic, when drawing analogues between religious doctrines and metaphysical analyses, I tend to think of deities specifically as constructs of thoughts, and to a certain degree collective consciousness. But care must be taken in distinguishing between that which is phenomenal (processed and tied to our consciousness) and that which is purportedly noumenal (i.e. "things within themselves" independent of our consciousness...that which is "empirically real"). As such, I would actually go so far to say that "a god that nobody acknowledges is not a god at all", but I would not apply the converse reasoning to it, for I contend there is a difference between a thought itself being real (if this notion is even valid), and the object of the thought being real.
I suspect that those who are more religiously inclined/inclined to faith would much rather argue for the real existence of a deity as independent from our consciousness, or even the limits of our perception including the universe itself. How this manifests also depends on the ontological perception of the person, I suppose. As far as I'm aware, in the Judeo-Christian religion, only a few unorthodox Anglican subdenominations hold the central doctrine of the real existence of a deity as being one dependent upon that of the perception of the worshippers. This in itself entails further difficulty regarding consistency and applicability of religious doctrine and then it becomes a rather large mess.
Well, I would agree with you here IMO. I think most people here, if not all, are past the stage of "proving" and have acknowledge that despite purported (and misapplied) antagonism, faith is really a matter of...faith.
