Gnostic Atheism? WTF?

[Ryantology]

It's equally irrational to state that you know A as to say you know not-A when the subject of the knowing (A) is unfalsifiable, though. A more rational position to take is "I don't know for sure but based on the evidence I've been able to assess I'm very certain A is probably false" or, using your example, "I'm not completely certain but I strongly suspect there's nothing there."

It may be that there is more evidence supporting one side than another, but to make a knowledge claim like "I know" about an unfalsifiable position is not rational.

I'm not really approaching it as a binary thing, though. Yeah, it's not rational to say "i know" when a statement isn't falsifiable. It is far less rational to say "I know" when the statement is unfalsifiable AND there is no evidence in support AND every falsifiable claim in support of it is proven false).

This is not a question in which there is an even chance of being right or wrong. If any individual theist claim ever turned out to be true, it would be just about the biggest surprise there could possibly ever be.

That's why I'm as sure as as is possible to be sure that there is no god.

The fact remains, though, that there is some non-zero chance that you could be wrong, so to call yourself a gnostic atheist is overreaching, as Cthulhu said, just as there's some non-zero chance that a gnostic theist is overreaching in their claim to know there is a god.

I don't deny that this is overreaching. I deny that it is overreaching to the same extent.

Gnostic atheism is saying "I know I can correctly add two single-digit numbers". There's a chance, however infinitesimal, that I could be wrong about it, or make a mistake I didn't intend to make. Gnostic theism is saying "I know I can calculate pi to a quadrillion decimal places in my head". There's virtually no chance they will be successful.

So, while I appreciate the technical reasons not to be a gnostic atheist (and I don't think of myself as one), in terms of being intellectually bankrupt, comparing gnostic atheism to gnostic theism is like comparing the size of a molecule to the size of the universe.

The very fact that theist assertions are designed specifically to be impervious to any imaginable form of falsification is evidence enough for me to conclude that it is untrue, and I don't act as if there is a chance that leprechauns and unicorns and Santa Claus actually exist.

TL;DR: when discussing the existence of god, the likelihood is so minuscule that I don't get hung up on the technicality.