Strong/Gnostic Atheism and Weak/Agnostic Atheism

[Eel_LahjicK]

I thought gnostic attached to theism or atheism, meant that they knew for sure. If it means they firmly believe in atheism/theism, then I don't see the big deal either way. To me, to intelligently say you're a gnostic theist, I think you would have to have a strong argument (which I have yet to see). On the other side of the coin, to be a gnostic atheist, I think less evidence is needed (in this era of science). Which is actually what we have for the argument of theism, no evidence. There is zero proof of a god, and a very low amount of sound arguments for god, so I have less of a problem with gnostic atheism than I do with gnostic theism. Thor makes sense to me, for people that lived thousands of years ago. As time moves along, and the age of reason progresses, you see less of these "fairy tale" style of gods. We are basically left with an "higher power" or an old man in the sky. Actually Hinduism comes to mind, when thinking of more unreasonable gods, but the imaginary sounding gods have slowly diminished. As far as #3 goes, I'd say that is an argument one's personal opinion, and I don't have one on that subject. As I am new into the atheism world, it would be hard to categorize myself as agnostic or gnostic. In my opinion, if you see no evidence and no reason to believe, then you're just an atheist. The agnostic and gnostic is a little redundant to me.