I don't believe that you don't believe that.
No need for skepticism - I've stated my position and there's no incentive for me to lie or be deceptive about it.
It's one thing to point out that he's dumbing down a complex belief system and generally being very dismissive, but there are people who believe what you described as a strawman- many, in fact.
It's not that he's "dumbed it down", it's that he's "simplified" it (if we're going to be generous and call it that) to the point that it no longer reflects anything people believe.
Most Christians believe that God watches over them and is with them in times of trouble, and chooses to be invisible because if they could see him, the light of his countenance would blind them [Paul was blind for three days after experiencing THE LIGHT and Moses' face shown after seeing God's shiny back]. Many people believe that God has a gender and that it is male because all of the names for God are male in addition to all of the pronouns.
None of that supports the idea that there is an "invisible man watching over them". I don't know of any religion that thinks god(s) is/are men - they are usually supernatural beings. If we reduce that down to "male pronouns" then the description given no longer makes sense as the dismissive tone is based on the idea of an actual man.
As for him being "invisible", this doesn't really make sense in light of most religious beliefs either. The claim is usually that he is a part of everything, not that he is a separate and tangible entity sitting apart from everything else. It would be the difference between saying the big bang occurred in a certain part of the universe versus saying that the big bang didn't take place in any part of the universe.
The closest part of the description (given a whole lot of charity) is the "watching over them" part but anyone with a basic understanding of what an interventionist god entails would see why that's a misleading description.
I think you might be overcompensating for his prejudices by proclaiming that no such religious person exists.
Not at all, as I think is demonstrated by even your extremely generous interpretation failing to support his description.