"Hes doing a copout."
Dawkins is doing what most rational people do: he's stating that he doesn't know something absolutely because he doesn't have all possible facts. This is the same reason that almost all atheists don't say, conclusively, definitely, and absolutely, that no god exists: we just don't have any way of knowing for sure.
It's completely possible that a "god" of some sort actually does exist and simply doesn't care or communicate or interact with humans in any way. The evidence that we have so far would, however, seem to indicate that one doesn't exist but there's no way to be 100% certain about that.
"I am 100% sure god exists."
And what, exactly, would make you absolutely certain that not only does a god exist but that your particular god is the one and only one to exist?
"Why can't he be sure of his beliefs."
Because Dawkins is not omniscient and it's completely possible, as I pointed out above, that a god, or entity that could be considered "god", could very well exist. It just appears to be extremely unlikely given what we understand of the universe.
"He is a hypocrite."
I don't think you understand the meaning of this word.
"Anyone can say you can't be 100% sure and when proof is discovered say well I didn't say 100%."
Which is exactly why you shouldn't go around claiming you know something to be absolutely true when you, in fact, do not.
"He is only a biologist and does not know anything about physics, quantum theory, general relativity, cosmology, etc.."
Precisely.
