Life on Mars is possible and therefore in the realm of needing additional proof to assert certainty either way. God is not, however, possible and therefore no additional proof that the most basic laws of reality are needed to assert 100% certainty that god cannot be. However you attempt to define it or evade reason, if it is god of any kind, it cannot exist. If it did, it would not be god. If you are not talking about something contradictory, metaphorical or supernatural, then you are not talking about god. Either way life on Mars and god are in two different categories. One is possible. One is not. New evidence of god is oxymoronic. Keeping an 'open mind' to the possibility of evidence for something that contradicts the process of proof is down right silly.
"However one who is not professing belief is an atheist in the eyes of a believer."
"gnostic atheists like MCT and MADHUKAR KULKARNI."
If this is the definition of an atheist, it fits me completely and I therefire call myself an atheist. What makes me "gnostic atheist"? Before dubbing us in this manner, you should have been kind enough to define your term "gnostic atheist".
I am an atheist because I do not believe in any gods. I am a gnostic atheist because I claim to have knowledge that there is no god. Agnostic atheists believe there is no god, but don't claim to have knowledge of this, or do claim that one cannot have knowledge of it.
"Bertrand Russel - "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?", 1947"
Bertrand Russel explained this by saying that he can neither prove conclusively that god exists nor he can conclusively prove that god does not exist. However, this not the case with me. I have no doubts in my mind and so such a question does not come to my mind.
I approach the same answer this way: either the universe is explicable by science (i.e. science as already known or will be known in the future with further advances) or it is not.
Anyone who thinks that it is not is allowing a degree of supernaturalism to enter---which is not scientific. I cannot accept any level of the supernatural to poke its way in. Therefore I say no to any degree of the supernatural, however remote.
Hence that makes 100% to science and 0% to creator gods.
How should I refer to you, Terence or Dr. Meaden?
OK, In science, there is always the possibility we don't know what we don't know.
How do you reconcile the scientific principles with absolute certainty?
Given what I now know I am certain there is no god, 100%! Doctors of old were certain infection spread by the ether, or whatever it was they used as authority. It turned out the doctors themselves were spreaders of disease via bacteria and all the ugly unseen infectors on their hands. If one holds on to certainty in the face of new information, would that not be as foolish as not holding on?
Revelation and dogma are things of religion. There is no dogmatic decree from anywhere that is followed and no burning bush that says to only doubt what is not fully integrated into a knowledge base without reason and never at the expense of reason. It is commitment to reason and the process of verification that leads to being able to have certain knowledge. Gnostic atheism is claiming knowledge that there is no god. It has nothing to do with the abandonment of reason and evidence. Can you not see that you are asserting with certainty, which you claim is impossible to have, that god is possible and you know it? Or are you just not sure what you are talking about? I mean, surely, you can't be sure.
If one is rational, he/she will accept proof that dislodges any opinion (belief) and accordingly change the opinion. Therefore there are no rational atheists.
Your initial statement states: a rational person can dislodge belief.
But by definition, atheism is not having a belief in God.
Therefore it doesn't make sense to apply your initial statement about 'having belief' to a group of people(atheists) who don't fall into the category of 'having belief'. Atheists fall into the category of 'non belief'
You need to change your initial statement, so that it applies to people who have 'no belief'.
Also, the statement
Therefore there are no rational atheists.
can be rephrased as:
Therefore there are no rational people who don't believe in God.
If somebody is irrational about one particular thing, it doesn't mean they are irrational about everything.
J. Stephen, do you really think an atheist who claims 100% certainty of no god will not recognize good evidence when faced with it? I can't even imagine what "good evidence" would look like but I am certain that when it comes one will recognize it.
Also, I don't think agnostics wait for a miracle, it is just that a good scientist looks for evidence and lets the evidence do the persuading.
I am 100% sure that there is no god and I would 100% change my mind if evidence was found for one.
(^.^) great answer!