Perhaps i worded the last post poorly. I was trying to make the distinction between saying you don't believe in something and saying that there's absolutely no chance of being wrong.
Like i've already pointed out the definition of an atheist is nothing more than someone who doesnt believe in any gods. There's no definition of atheist that includes being too stubborn to admit that possibility of being wrong. Some people are like that and some arent, this is true for any set of beliefs. You're making unfair generalizations about all atheists. There are Christians who admit they might be wrong does that make them no longer Christians?
Atheists have examined the evidence available and come to a conclusion based upon that evidence. Any decent scientist will tell you that science doesnt have all the answers and probably never will, this doesnt stop them from ever making predictions. Yet you keep saying that coming to conclusions based on the evidence is irrational just because of the possibility of being wrong.
I think Richard Dawkins put it best when he said:
"It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
Like i've said atheism and agnosticism are NOT mutually exclusive, you CAN be both. | 
What's that? You haven't 
Linear Mode
