Richard Dawkins on Global Atheist Convention 2010 in Australia:
Excellent, I strongly recommend, etc.. etc. .. It is more about biology / evolution of what exactly atheism or religion, but it's worth.
But this post, as well as working to share the video focuses on a question in Q & A section at the end of the video, and response. The question is:
Self-describe myself as agnostic, because, although I believe that there is no god, I'm not absolutely sure, there is always a little, tiny chance. When describing themselves as atheists, do not you run the risk of being so dogmatic as believers?
Dawkins's response was good: we are all technically agnostic to all that we do not believe (eg fairies, werewolves), since it is not possible to prove that something does not exist. Said the scale of belief that I had used to explain this issue in The God Delusion, where 1 is "I know there is a god" and 7 is "I know that does not exist", and described to himself as a 6.9. But I think he could also have gone the other hand.
In a way, I understand the concern of the kind that asked the question. For those who have suffered the consequences of religious fundamentalism, is always present in his memory as such believers were quite sure of what they believed, without ever questioning those beliefs. The escape of such fundamentalism, it is natural to pass to distrust the very idea of having absolute and dogmatic certainties, immune to any fact or argument. And think a person in this situation, it is atheism simply the other side of the same coin - the "absolute and dogmatic certainty" that there are no gods? There are atheists victims (or perpetrators) in exactly the same error? If it is not possible to have 100% certainty, not a person will make more sense to describe themselves as agnostic?
The answer is "no", for one simple reason: there is an error definitions. Atheism is not "absolute and dogmatic certainty" that there is no god, is, rather, the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is, as Dawkins pointed out, treat "God" as this "fairy" or "elves": a person need not have to be "absolutely, dogmatically" certain that these creatures do not exist, just do not believe them, have no belief in them.
As I have argued in the past, no need to have a perfect knowledge of the universe (omniscience), or "evidence" absolute non-existence of a god, to be an atheist. Just as follows: scalar beliefs according evidence, which is in any case the position is to be rational. Note that an openly Christian beliefs does not scale according to the evidence, what it does, however, is to affirm that belief without evidence (ie, "faith") is a virtue. (Interestingly, the same believer typically do not apply it to the beliefs of other religions, which he will obviously be wrong ...)
But for those who prefer, rationally, calling their beliefs according to the evidence, it is easy to get up to atheism, indeed, is the only logical conclusion. Zero evidence for something -> zero belief in something, and "zero faith" in a god or gods is the definition of atheism. You do not need faith, or omniscience, nor any certainty "absolute and dogmatic" to reach this position. After all, if one day appear * any * evidence, I (like any rational atheist) would reconsider my position ...

