_sartre_

Gnosticism would be the belief that a certain proposition is "known". I claim to know some types of Gods don't exist, which would make me a "gnostic atheist". An example of a God that I would claim to "know" did not exist would be a God that was defined with a self-contradictory nature, which means that it would be like a "square-circle". There cannot be a shape that has the properties of a square and the properties of a circle simultaneously, so anything that is said to exist that has such characteristics, can be known not to exist (however I do argue that logical contradictions are believably possible, though also believably nonexistent). Another example of a God that I would claim to "know" did not exist would be a God that could be dismissed where evidence is not found where evidence would be expected, like if somebody told you there was a dragon in your bedroom and then after searching your bedroom you didn't find a dragon then you could "know" that there was no dragon in your bedroom. The Christian God would be both an example of a God that does have a self-contradictory nature and a God that lacks evidence where evidence would be expected, so I claim to "know" this God doesn't exist. By "know" I just mean that I believe I can sustain the proposition "God does not exist" beyond a reasonable amount of doubt, which means I don't claim to certainly and absolutely know that this God doesn't exist. It's a belief and this belief may change in the future (like all my beliefs); however, it is a very strong belief. So for these types of Gods I would be called a "gnostic atheist", which altogether would mean that I believe that the claim "god does not exist" is true. Agnosticism would be the belief that a certain proposition is either an "unknown" or an unknowable. I do not claim to know that some types of Gods don't exist, which would make me an "agnostic atheist". The reason I don't claim to know that some Gods don't exist is because I don't believe I have gained enough knowledge of the God to make a claim about its nonexistence. When you claim something doesn't exist, you are making as much of a claim as when you believe something does exist, so since the burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim, and since in order to make a rational claim you have to have a certain amount of "knowledge" of what you're claiming, I don't make a claim of nonexistence for a God that's unknown. An example of a god I would claim to be "unknowable" would be a God that is invisible. Since knowledge is derived from experiences acquired either indirectly or directly through the senses, something which is invisible cannot be gained knowledge of, and therefore is an unknowable. I don't "believe this God doesn't exist" but I "do not believe this God does exist". The former is a claim and the latter is no claim at all. So for these types of Gods I would be called an "agnostic atheist", which altogether would mean that I lack belief in the claim "god does not exist". An exception to this is an invisible God that has a square-circle nature to it, this God can be known to not exist even if it's invisible, so I would be a gnostic towards an invisible god that had a self-contradictory nature.