I agree with all that. The trouble with atheism is that it's seen as a sort of absolutist concept. Here's where I am: if you tell me that little seven-legged blue men have an outpost on the outer rings of Saturn, well I can ridicule you and make you the butt of a million jokes and laugh in your face, but what I can't do is prove that you're wrong. The reason I can't is that you've proposed a notion that, ridiculous though it is, can't be checked. You may have done that either because you're deluded or, far more vexatiously, that you want to be a contrarian. I see the proposal that there's a God who can neither be explained (because he's been deliberately put beyond science), nor can explain anything, as a similar concept. All I can say is that I don't know whether you're right or wrong. But that isn't to say that I'm squarely on the fence. If the word atheist is to have any practical use, it must be acknowledged that those of us who adhere to it must accept that we have to shrug and admit that we can't prove your ludicrous notion, mainly because you've chosen to make it ludicrous.

And even Richard Dawkins admits that he doesn't know whether there's a God or not.