Atheism as the null hypothesis.

[robvalue]

Jehane: thank you

The definition of "know" isn't hard and fast, in my opinion. Since it's actually impossible to have certainty that anything we think we know is actually true/real, the best we can have is very well supported conclusions.

I'd say it's up to each person who uses the terms agnostic/gnostic to say what exactly they mean. It's pretty reasonable to say "I know Yahweh is imaginary" in the same way you'd say "I know a Father Christmas isn't real". It's a very practical version of "knowledge"; but technically you could write it as, "There is no evidence that Yahweh is real, and plenty of evidence to suggest that he is not".

I tend to discourage people from taking the gnostic position, except in cases where a claim that is actually impossible is being put forward (because it's not internally consistent). This is just to avoid setting yourself up for theists to shift the burden of proof onto you. But in reality, a confident strong atheist isn't much different from a gnostic, and both would reconsider their position in light of new (any ) evidence. We both act as if Yahweh is not real.

If a claim is consistent with reality and unfalisiable, then it's truth value is unknowable. However, the more assumptions you need to make in order to accommodate the claim, the less likely it would seem to be. Hitchens razor helps us dismiss the tirade of nonsense, and to spend our time most profitably on those claims that do have supporting evidence. Unfalsifiable assumptions are of no practical value.

When the God definition is scaled down to simply an intelligent creator, it seems to me taking a gnostic position is premature.

You may find this thread interesting. I tried to make a case in that thread that the term agnostic was pointless. I've since changed my mind about that, partly due to the discussion that took place in that topic.