Gnostic Atheism? WTF?

[One Above All]

"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.

Because you don't really know them, do you? You believe in them without absolute certainty (in other words, you have faith those things are true), but, if they can be proven false, you never really knew them. I mean, you knew the concepts, but not the reality.

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?

What's your basis for that acceptance? Experience. Experience that can't be objectively verified without being filtered by your flawed brain. You can't prove anything if you set your standards as high as you have set them for the existence of deities.

I won't lie, I have a deep distaste for solipsism, which is where you seem to be heading with this point.

It is the logical conclusion of your standards for the existence of deities. It's a double-standard, which is what I'm trying to show you.

Philosophy is indeed the top of a cereal box.

I'm not familiar with that expression.

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.

You adhere to the viewpoint that, to disprove something, you need to have absolute, objective knowledge of all of reality. This is a ridiculous standard. Either that or you think that absence of evidence after tens of thousands of years isn't evidence of absence, which is just as ridiculous of a standard.