"Well, Dawkins, of course, says he's not an atheist because he can't be 100% sure that there isn't a God. But then he says that he can't be 100% sure there isn't a fridge orbiting Jupiter!"

It's usually referred to as a teapot. There is no one alive who can be sure that there's no Santa Claus. But, the logical fallacy is that you can't prove a negative.

The term "atheist" has to continually be redefined. Maybe the term "Freethinker" or "Non-believer" should be used in its stead.

Having read this thread, I have my own opinion and conclusions about what it means.
I see this as an attack upon atheists in an attempt to discredit them. Dawkins is a target because he provokes thought and rubs some religious people the wrong way.

I have great respect for sensible ideas and useful discussion. The title of the thread is ambiguous at best but if it opens the conversation for dialogue, then I can respect that.

I don't respect fist pounding on the table laced with anger and shutting down the conversation with self-righteous proclamations and accusations.

Personally, I see no reason to attack religious views as long as they don't infringe on the right for me to hold mine. Again, no bar fights for me. I'll stick to the facts and dialogue.