Sheldon,
1. OK, so you now no longer claim to be objective. That's encouraging.
2. You claim to set the same standard for all claims and beliefs. OK. So far so good.
3. One belief I hold for which I have no direct evidence is "I believe atoms exist". I have no direct observation of atoms, but I am told they exist, and I believe it. I believe sub atomic items such as electrons and neutrons exist, although I recognized these are theoretical models of phenomenon that no one has directly seen. How's that? and So what? and Oh, I believe the earth is a sphere, and not flat, but I have no direct observation of that fact. I believe it based on indirect means.
4. According to an atheist poster here, science doesn't prove anything. I agreed with him. Theories can never be proven. In principle, everything scientists believe could be false.
5. What is subjectivity? Epistemology portrays the problem of knowledge in terms of the subject - object relation.
the subject is the sensing thinking knower. The object is the entity the subject is observing and thinking about. Teh object doesn't have to be a physical object. It can be an idea as well.
With simple things such as 'the subject is sitting on the chair' we don't really notice any problem between the subject and the object (the chair).
Too, with other simple examples such as 'we observed through a telescope and saw that the planet is mountainous.' No obvious problem there.
However, problems arise when we want to explain something we could not see directly. For example, a subject sees a huge deep canyon. How did that canyon form, he wonders. Some say it eroded over many thousands, maybe millions of years. Another claims it formed very quickly at the end of an ice age. When the ice age ended a huge volume of water flowed over the area and eroded the ground in a matter of years. Another says there was an underground river that eroded the ceiling of the river until the ceiling collapsed forming the canyon.
So we have three theories. Lets suppose that the underground river theory gets accepted as fact due to better coherence with what is observed. In the other two theories we note that the subjects are reasoning correctly within a false theory. That's subjectivity. With the theory taken as fact, the underground river one, the subject is reasoning correctly with in a true theory. That's true knowledge. The subject has made contact with reality.
Definition of subjectivity: a correct inference within a false theory or system.
Definition of knowledge: a correct inference within a true theory or system. This is neither subjective nor objective because the subject has made contact with reality.

Of course we have to keep in mind that an atheist poster here correctly insisted that theories can't be proven. Theories are models of reality, and there is no absolute proof that a theory, taken as fact, is indeed reality. So the idea that a subject has made contact with reality is ultimately a belief.