I think u have a misunderstanding of what im trying to say (as i am not very good at explaining my position...sorry for that). But basically im not making a claim that there is no god, Im saying there is no prof of a god. I am not saying "it is not there until i can see, touch, smell, etc. cuz thats how science works" but instead I am saying I will not believe in a god until someone can reasonably prove there is one. Its like if i were to say I'm a millionaire and I want you to tell everyone that I'm a millionaire. Well you have no proof that I am but me just claiming I am a millionaire doesnt make it true. If you were to go around claim to everyone that i'm a millionaire without knowing you would be taking a leap of faith that what I'm saying is true. But if you were to say "I want proof before I do anything" that requires no leap of faith now does it. There is a chance I could be but there is no evidence to support what I am saying. So the default position would be I am not a millionaire, and if evidence comes to light that shows otherwise then you would change from the default to affirming what I said is true.
It requires no leap of faith(blind faith as u say) to say there is no proof of god. It requires a huge leap of faith to say there is a god as to me there is no evidence to suggest anything of the sort exists or ever existed. To claim that god is beyond our understanding ("most likely god is supernatural or exists in a universe much different than our own.") is like saying I can't prove god doesnt exist, but as I said before I'm not claiming he doesn't exist, I am claiming there is no evidence for God therefore it is not necessary, logical or reasonable to be believe in him.
Simply put I am not taking a leap of faith when I say there is no proof for a god.
As pointed out by me above the problem is that most atheists do not say there is no proof of god. Atheists claim there is no god period.
Perfect example is the definition of atheism as given by dictionaries.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
I know what you are trying to say. That the burden of proof for someone who believes in a god is on them, that you can't prove a negative. However the act of believing that a negative does not exist still requires a belief and thus makes atheism a belief system which states an absolute assertion based on a belief. This is incompatible with and open system of learning.
I will give the following example as proof.
Back in the 1500s everyone believed the earth was flat. Now the burden of proof was on those who said the earth was round because it was accepted by all of society that the earth was flat. This meant that the negative burden of proof at the time of this belief was that the earth was round. The accepted belief was that it was flat.
So
Positive belief was "the earth is flat"
Negative belief(which had the burden of proof on it) was "the earth is round"
Now if you follow this logic and replace earth is flat with atheist and earth is round with a person who believes in god you get
Positive belief "god doesn't exist"
Negative belief (as you say the burden of proof is on the believers) "god does exist"
You can clearly see from the example above that both beliefs are assertions taking an absolute position. However as science matured it disproved the socially held belief that the earth was flat and proved that the earth was round.
Since science is incomplete at the moment and since we do not have all the knowledge required to make an absolute statement that god does not exist, we cannot logically say with all certainty that god does not exist. The reason for this is that the picture is incomplete just as the picture for whether the earth was flat or round was incomplete. And as we discovered science eventually proved the positive assertion by society that the earth was flat wrong and the negative assertion that it was round as correct.
Because science is -incomplete- it still leaves the -possibility- that a god exists. Thus the idea that you cannot prove a negative really does not apply.
Science actually backs this up as well. Physics as you may know once held the assertion that everything in the universe was either a "yes" or a "no". A "positive" or a "negative" which is what you reference in your statement about the burden of proof being on the negative assertion. Then Quantum Mechanics came along and turned physics on its head. Under the rules of Quantum Mechanics the universe no longer is either a "yes" or a "no". Quantum Mechanics provides the mathematical formulas to state that everything is possible in the universe no matter how outrageous it may sound even if the chance of such a thing happening is 1 in 1000 to the 1000th power. The result of this discovery technically means that no absolute assertions can be made about anything and be proven correct. There is only a probability of it being correct and no matter how many times you repeat the experiment at one point in time the experiment will do the opposite of what it was supposed to do. It might take the experiment being done a near infinite amount of times but it will happen eventually.
The more we discover through science the more bizarre what we refer to as "reality" starts to become. There are no absolutes at this point in time in science. So I suggest you join the agnostic club with me and watch from the sidelines while two sides club each other to death because nobody is ever going to prove anyone else correct...at least not with our current understanding of science.