This is an 11 minute video. It's all purely conjecture but worth discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw

I don't really like the position of hard-Atheism because logically I think it falls over.

If a hypothetical flatlander who exists in the second dimension, passes through the third, their capability of observing things is incredibly limited. Likewise, it can be supposed that we currently observe five dimensions (because time is linear) but anything beyond that is either difficult or impossible to observe.
Since science itself relies on the collection of empirical and measurable evidence, how is it supposed to deal with unobservable evidence? That isn't to suggest that the evidence isn't there though. What if God/god/s are/is a hyperdimensional being who exists in all dimensions or somewhere above?

Part of the problem with this entire debate is that people's perception is entirely skewed. Theists will take evidence as proof of the existence of God, whereas Atheists will take evidence as proof of the non-existence of God.
The word agnostic derives from the Greek "gnosis" which means knowledge and the "a" at the beginning is a negative qualifier. Agnosticism basically holds that there aren't rational grounds and/or reason itself isn't sufficient to prove whether or not God/god/s exist or not.

I myself am a Theist (a Christian) but for the reasons stated above completely understand why an Atheist would find my position just as unalienable. Given that my perception is also entirely skewed, it's entirely rational for both hard-Atheists and agnostic-atheists to reject my position outright.