Gnostic Atheism? WTF?

[Mister Agenda]

Certainly if we're specific about which god. Yahweh has too many internal contradictions to exist. The book that claims his existence is too discredited. I am a gnostic atheist with regards to Yahweh as described in the Bible.

Fair enough. I guess agnosticism toward a deistic god is a logical position, but I think it's just a cop out, really.

It's a cop out not to claim to know something that's unknowable?

Also, being (or claiming to be) a gnostic atheist makes for good conversation, and trolls theists, as indicated by the OP lol

It's better for trolling atheists, with theists it just confirms in their minds what many of them already believe: that we have a faith-based belief that God doesn't exist. Most atheists are agnostic atheists and it gets on our nerves when atheists claim knowledge they don't actually possess. We kind of expect it from theists.

---

I am a gnostic atheist, and I'll tell you why.
While it is true that you cannot prove the non-existence of something based on evidence (in fact, if you set your standards high enough, you can't prove anything at all), you can prove it by logic alone. Logic is not sufficient to prove the existence of something, but it can prove the non-existence of something, if that something has a definition that is either impossible or self-contradicting.
I have defined a "god" as having these two qualities:
Omnipotence
Omniscience
Each quality has paradoxes associated with them, and the two together are just horribly inconsistent (impossible).
A god worthy of worship must have another quality, in addition to the other two qualities: benevolence. Due to the nature of our universe, this is inconsistent with reality (but not necessarily the other two qualities).

This is why I am a gnostic atheist and, unless my definition of "god" changes, it is as I will remain until I die.
EDIT: Even if I became a gnostic theist, I would never worship any god that was not benevolent. Again, due to the nature of our universe, such a being does not exist.

That works for the Abrahamic God, but lots of people don't believe in that one. Congratulations on deciding the version of God most easily demolished is the only one that counts, I suppose.

---

Negatives can be proven as long as definitions are agreed on and it isn't a universal negative. I can prove there isn't a unicorn in my pocket, but I can't prove there isn't a unicorn anywhere in the universe. Ad hoc definition shifting can make a local negative unprovable, but it's dishonest (the unicorn might be tiny, and invisible, and intangible, so it COULD be in your pocket!).

There's an exception to disproving a universal negative. If something has the property of being omnipresent, then if iit isn't in the first place you look, it doesn't exist.