Atheists ignorant of Theology

A common argument against atheists is that we are ignorant of Theology. I can't speak for other atheists, but I'm happy to plead guilty as charged. I haven't read any of the big names in theology, and I don't intend to. I'm convinced it isn't necessary. If their arguments really had any merit, there would also be some objective evidence they could point to as well. As Christopher Hitchens says: "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

But I wonder if any Theologian has ever written a Theology for Dummies that approaches Theology the way I'd like to see it approached? Consider three possible hypotheses about "god":

1. The Old Testament is essentially true.
2. The Old Testament is myth, but there really is a God (unrelated to the God of Abraham) who created the universe.
3. The Old Testament is myth and there are no gods.

For me to take Theology seriously, all three hypotheses must be addressed with intellectual honesty. I would need to see arguments that show how we could tell which of the three hypotheses best explains the world we can all objectively observe. If a Theologian could do this and make strong arguments that the 3rd hypothesis is the weakest, then that would be interesting.

Logic demands agnosticism, not atheism

Here is a quote on Facebook from someone whose initials are J.H. but I will leave otherwise anonymous:

Logic demands that an atheist who chooses not to be an agnostic prove the non-existence of god, just as logic demands that Christians prove the existence of god. Logic demands agnosticism, not atheism.

This argument seems to assume that the only type of logic that may be employed is strict trinary logic, allowing only the three values true, false, and unknown. If one tries this approach, and further asserts that the validity of a claim must be unknown until strictly proven otherise, then only purely mathematical claims could assigned a validity other than unknown, since strict proof is only possible using formal mathematics. In all real world endeavors, people commonly abandon the strict notion of proof and instead use something closer to the judicial notions of preponderance of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt.

I believe people subconsciously use a form of logic that is closer to the way digital devices implement boolean logic using analog electronics. A digital device assigns false to 0.0 volts and true to 1.0 volts, but the voltage is never exactly 0.0 or 1.0 with infinite precision, so instead some kind of tolerance threshold is employed.

Consider two claims about the supernatural:

1. There may one or more intelligent beings who exist outside of our spacetime universe who have the means to observe and influence our universe.
2. The Old Testament is factually correct, i.e. the God of Abraham is real, created our universe, occasionally manipulates the universe.

I consider both claims to be false. But one claim is more false than the other.