I find the idea of gnostic atheism a weird concept. You can't logically prove/know that all possible concepts of god are necessarily not true. Gnostic atheism seems like an equally noodly concept as gnostic theism:
Gnostic theism: I know that there is some kind of God
Agnostic theism: I know that there is no kind of God
If there was a deistic sort of god than atheism would be untrue. You have to define god first then demonstrate which parts of that definition cannot be true. For example I am a Gnostic Atheist with regards to the Christian God because the bible claims that God works through the prayers of his people and there have been studies that have shown that prayer fails to produce any statistically significant results in reality. Therefore the Christian God isn't real, or at least is defined wrong in the bible. Which, is often how that goalpost is shifted.
On the general question of God/god or gods, I am an agnostic atheist and theological noncognitivist because those seem to be the most intellectually honest representations of what is possible to hold as knowledge. The concept of God/god or gods is poorly defined across the board and when pressed into a workable, testable definition often the concepts colapse upon themselves or members of the same sect will disagree about the esoteric meanings within meanings. So, in a game of "discuss the god" the ball changes shape, goalposts move, cats and dogs play together, and the lion sleeps tonight.
I assure you that even though one can express the claim that your "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" that doesn't mean that cognition happens when that sentence is spoken. One can also not "know" that the thing the speaker is talking about is ontologically nonsensical even though their sentence certainly is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_g..._furiously
Gnostic theism: I know that there is some kind of God
Agnostic theism: I know that there is no kind of God
If there was a deistic sort of god than atheism would be untrue. You have to define god first then demonstrate which parts of that definition cannot be true. For example I am a Gnostic Atheist with regards to the Christian God because the bible claims that God works through the prayers of his people and there have been studies that have shown that prayer fails to produce any statistically significant results in reality. Therefore the Christian God isn't real, or at least is defined wrong in the bible. Which, is often how that goalpost is shifted.
On the general question of God/god or gods, I am an agnostic atheist and theological noncognitivist because those seem to be the most intellectually honest representations of what is possible to hold as knowledge. The concept of God/god or gods is poorly defined across the board and when pressed into a workable, testable definition often the concepts colapse upon themselves or members of the same sect will disagree about the esoteric meanings within meanings. So, in a game of "discuss the god" the ball changes shape, goalposts move, cats and dogs play together, and the lion sleeps tonight.
I assure you that even though one can express the claim that your "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" that doesn't mean that cognition happens when that sentence is spoken. One can also not "know" that the thing the speaker is talking about is ontologically nonsensical even though their sentence certainly is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_g..._furiously
