I believe there is no God.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am glad to hear that you can finally admit your faith in there being no God ^_^

The burden of proof is on the believer.

If you "merely believe", you still believe there is no God... Adding the word 'merely' doesn't change the fact of your belief, silly

I mean "merely believe" as opposed to "believe and believe that I know"

Is the title necessarily an expression of gnostic/strong atheism?

Yes, it is after all: what you believe.

That doesn't make me a gnostic or strong atheist. To be a gnostic or strong atheist I'd have to believe that I KNOW that God doesn't exist. I don't believe that.

You can know and still be wrong

No. Then I wouldn't "know" I'd just think I knew.

And yet, you still know there is no God... and the fact that you know there is no God is a gnostic position

(I don't know there's no God because I'm not aware of his nonexistence because his nonexistence is indistinguishable from him doing some really good hiding.)

I don't believe I know there is no God (mostly because of the above point in brackets) so I'm not a gnostic atheist.

If you believe there is no god, you know that there is no god

No!!! In case you didn't realize, these words mean different thing.

Knowledge implies belief. But belief doesn't imply knowledge.

I believe that I wouldn't win the lottery if I were to buy tickets for it... i know it infact.

No you don't because if you were to win the lottery that's proof you didn't really know it. How could you know it? How can you know you won't win? You can merely be sure that you won't.... however unlikely it is, it doesn't prove it's impossible.

Causality isn't even proven, however sure we can be that it exists we don't know that it does.

But just as all beliefs can be misplaced, so too can the reason for the belief (the knowledge) be misplaced

You seem to think that if I believe something that is identical to me "knowing" it!!

---

A belief that there is no god is a positive position. It is also position of gnosticism

Believing there is no God would only be a position of gnosticism if I also believe I KNOW there is no God.

the Agnostic version would be a belief that there is probably no god.

Believing there is no God leaves open his probability. If I believe there is no God that doesn't imply I believe God is impossible. I can believe there is no God and believe he is improbable OR impossible. Just as how, as I have been saying, I can OBVIOUSLY believe something with or without a belief that I also know it to be true.

What is your justification for this belief?

I don't have epistemic justification for it, I just know THAT I believe it, I don't know why. Why should I need to? I'm not making any claim of knowlege: Which is why I'm not a gnostic atheist.

I've already explained all this.

Is the justification sound and valid? (the premises are true and the conclusion follows).

An epistemic justification would be absurd because it would contradict my scepticism on the matter. Just as to justify my skepticism epistemically would be absurd because it would contradict itself. I justify my skepticism pragmatically and I don't justify it or anything else epistemically: I'm an epistemological skeptic.

I know that I'm aware and I know that tautologies must be true because they're true by definition. I know that logic can be valid. But I don't know WHY these things are true, because I don't know why anything exists or 'is' at all. I don't need to know why, I don't justify things epistemically. I justify things pragmatically and the only things I know I merely am aware of and don't know why.

You seem like you're committing the black swan fallacy.

Elaborate. (It seems to me like you're wrongly accusing me of the argument from ignorance or something like that).

To me it seems like I'm starting with the premise that gnostic atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist, I don't claim to know that, I merely claim that I believe God doesn't exist (not that I know).

Ok, how about this:

Premise 1: Knowledge implies belief, but belief doesn't imply knowledge.

Premise 2: Gnostic atheism is claiming to know that God doesn't exist.

Argument: Claiming knowledge implies claiming belief, but claiming belief doesn't imply claiming knowledge (following from premise 1). So if I claim to believe God doesn't exist, I am not - necessarily - claiming to know God doesn't exist.

Conclusion: I am not a gnostic atheist because I merely claim belief and not knowledge.