Gnostic Atheism? WTF?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why do you not apply that same logic to everything? How do you know that you are seeing blue? Just because you call it blue and everyone else calls it blue doesn't really prove anything, does it? You could be colorblind and what you call "blue" is actually what everyone else calls "red".

You're equivocating subjective experience and objective knowledge. Blue exists only as a portion of the spectrum, but how we experience blue is unique. There is nothing which inherently tells us that blue is around 650 Thz. We experience it as we each experience it.

In fact, how do you even know anything else exists? You can't prove their existence, therefore you can't know for certain. To be honest, how do you know anything? Prove to me something that can be proven to 100% certainty. Go ahead. Don't give me math, though. "1 + 1 = 2" is simply based on what we've observed, and therefore can't really be proven (known). Same goes for cogito ergo sum. Why do you believe (know) that, just because you think, you actually exist? Because you've observed it. You can't prove that with 100% certainty, and therefore can't know it.

"Proof" is a concept of logic and mathematics, not science, which is always tentative in nature. That means that everything I know is subject to change, given appropriate evidence. I'm unsure why that seems problematic.

To answer your question directly, I accept existence as axiomatic. If I didn't exist, in one form or another, we could not be having this conversation, now could we?

I won't lie, I have a deep distaste for solipsism, which is where you seem to be heading with this point. Philosophy is indeed the top of a cereal box.

That is the logical conclusion of the "I can't prove anything" mentality. If you set your standards ridiculously high enough (like, say, proving something beyond what is possible, which is what you are demanding of god in order to become a gnostic atheist), you won't be able to prove (know) anything at all.

I don't adhere to the view that "I cannot prove anything". Implicit in my position is an entirely different point: I cannot disprove many conceptions of god at this time. Strawmanning my point doesn't refute it.