The error of atheism
Ian finds atheists quite troubling, because he's hung up on the atheist's "certainty."
[Even Richard] Dawkins doesn't claim absolute certainty. A chapter of The God Delusion is titled, "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God." Any atheist will allow that there are things in this universe that we don't understand. But we give no quarter to the idea that religious people — who don't possess a single shred of evidence — have any claim on knowing whether there's a God, or what it's like. Why should we?
Atheists like yours truly choose that term, rather than the comfortably hedged "agnostic," as an unambiguous statement against the utterly fallacious claims about religion that pervade our society.
When I self-identify as an atheist, instead of an agnostic, I'm rejecting politically correct creedence to YHWH, the FSM, and Russell's teapot, not attempting to rule out the possibility of forces beyond any human's knowledge.
Yes, to accept the term in its simplest, clearest sense is to accept a rounding error against the possibility of some unknown and possibly unknowable something. But it's far more accurate than allowing that the fabricated somethings that pass for religious "truth" are in any way credible.