Whether you say that a god does exist, or that none do, it is a claim to know (or at least believe in) something. Once you claim to know something, you can't call that a lack of belief in the opposite view and then say it's the place that you started.

The atheist might have no proof for the supernatural, but they also have no proof against it. If we start at a neutral position of not knowing, we can't move away from it until we have proof or evidence either way.

The claim to know that no god exists is just irrational. The non-existence of any god has no evidence, let alone proof. To know something for certain there must be proof. To hold to a belief there must be evidence. Until then, the only actual reasonable position is agnosticism.

Naturalistic atheism debunks itself. It has no power to explain even some of the most basic principles of the universe and existence. It cannot even explain how its own claims can be reasonably believed.

Having been shown the possibility that God exists, the atheist has chosen not to accept it. They have no proof or even evidence of their belief, but will stick by it. This takes blind faith.

The scientific method gives us information by testing and repeating observable things so that we can find the rules for the way that the universe generally works. But if you were to try and use it to prove that Henry VIII had six wives, you would be powerless.