I point out to you that that is not how any atheists use the term, you point me to the dictionary and say that if its in the dictionary, thats what it mean no matter what.
That's an interesting statment. So you claim most Atheist use a word to discribe themselves, that doesn't discribe them themselves? I'm confused!
Scientists only deal in probabilities...
So it is not possible to "know" anything (except math) 100%? How about natural laws?
Lets sum up. Dawkins devote a whole chapter in the God delusion (titled: "why there is allmost certainly no God") to describe how far-fetched he find the idea of an God. He likes it to believing in the tooth-fairy...
Dawkins wants to call himself an "Atheist". OK that's fine with me, that's his decision.
Can you admit the title you quoted "why there is allmost certainly no God" proves his bias? His world view is based on the ideal, that there is no God.
Then...Dawkins wants to sound "rational"... so he knows he has to open the door a little, and say: (even though, deep down, he bases everything on the ideal, that there is no God) it's possible that I'm wrong, there's no way to know 100%.
You're confused? I think he's fooling himself. He's not being honest. I really don't care what he calls himself, he wants it both ways.
Bottom line: He wants to live his life as an Atheist, he even talks like an Atheist. He simply can't be 100% sure and according to him there is no way to know.