I do not get the Gnostic Atheist either. If there is not evidence FOR a God (s), and the burden lies upon the claimant, how does the failure of said claimant to prove their claim become proof of lack in a universe we can scantly see 1% of?
That itself is hubris is it not?
It seems to as much a position of Faith as that of a theist.
A Theist believe there is a God and is convinced that is the truth and they have knowledge of that via some personal experience = Gnostic Theist
An Atheist who is convinced there is No God and is convinced by the lack of evidence that no such thing exists or could ever exist = Gnostic Atheist
BOTH are maling hard claims of KNOWLEDGE, that they KNOW of a certainty that there is or is not a God, however someone might be defining that term.

BOTH seem to me to be conflating a belief with knowledge, they believe in God so strongly and have had personal experiences they feel validate their belief and falsely equate that to actual proof, to real knowledge, or they have done enough research to find zero evidence across a large enough spectrum to assert there is no valid reason to believe the claims with out evidence, and then leap from an assumption about practical reality(no evidence equals no God) to an assertion about philosophical reality ( no evidence means there can be no God)

Both are faith based positions.

What is most perplexing is why anyone would assume such a burden of proof by making the hard assertion "there is no God", now I would have to prove that, and that is no more possible than proving the Supernatural God.

@Davesnothere you do have a point but if there is he is a fucking asshole. logic says that it isn't possible to know everything or about everyone. there is no evidence at all. I am not burdened the same as my dogs are not burdened or my fish. if I want to scratch my balls I do. your logic is if you can't see it how can you prove anything? good question. how do you know whether you're actually the only living thing on this planet or its just some joke? how do you prove that anything you can't see is there? maybe its a big show put on just for you. how do you know Thor does not exist? the meaning of believe :judge or regard; look upon; judge
I believe her to be very smart
:be confident about something
I believe that he will come back from the war
:accept as true; take to be true
I believed his report
We didn't believe his stories from the War
She believes in spirits
:credit with veracity
You cannot believe this man
Should we believe a publication like the National Enquirer?
:follow a credo; have a faith; be a believer
When you hear his sermons, you will be able to believe, took. does time exist? probably not. you think too much. I don't believe not I don't know.

@LeighShelton You are touching directly on the main point, that is the difference between CONCEPTUAL reality or Philosphical reality, what we can envision or imagine, and PRACTCAL REALITY, what we can prove, what we can share, what is viable.

This is base axiom of Russell's teapot. I cannot PROVE there is a teapot orbiting the planet, NOR is it possible to DISPROVE there is a teapot orbiting the Planet. The CONCEPT of that teapot will exist forever, and people are free to believe in it if they feel so inclined, but there is no SOUND rational reason to do so.

In the Philosophical sense we do NOT know whether Thor or Ra or Hera is Real, but there is NO PRACTCAL reason to believe that is so, hence in this modern age it is ASSUMED they are fictions invented by an ancient culture, as that is the most likely conclusion.

In the case of the Modern functioning religions we are in exactly the same boat. This is addressed very aptly by Bertrand Russell.

PROOF of God
“Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of Homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. ”

Bertrand Russell

@LeighShelton and I agree, MOST models for God would be very assholish at the very least.

@Davesnothere well all gods, if they exist, are like naturalists and just watch their creation do whatever its going to and do nothing. I choose not to believe myself. I have a life to live.

remember what belief means. what was your point? I didn't say I know there isn't. I said im a 100% none believer

@LeighShelton The point is there is not reason to make a counterclaim of "there is no such thing", it is simply not our burden to bear. It is the burden of the person who believes it to prove it is a viable thing, a PRACTICAL reality and not merely a concept which they embrace because they like it, or it provides some sort of emotional support to assauge fear.

PS Nice Beard

it's no burden lol I don't care but I know what you mean. thanks about the beard lol

its just a chat site and the admins best attempt to get an answer to complicated ideas in an efficient way

A simple change of terms would work.
"Do you believe in the idea of a deity of any type?

Thanks @Davesnothere. I hope @Admin takes note and considers it.

@davesnotthere Thats pretty good. I would add another question "Do you consider the possibility of scientifically advanced forces other than humans in the Universe, to be possible" Deity conjures up "magical sky man" connotations for me.

Most folks unaquainted with Philosophy don't know the term, but it is more precise, and much more apt for me.
and I made a note for the explanation, who wants to type all that over and over?

@Davesnothere I'm not too hip on philosophy, but when I first heard the term I checked it out and it fit me just fine. Good idea of having a note ready. I usually just copypasta from google for people.

@Paul628 I have a LOT of them from online debating . . .

A simple change of terms would work. "Do you believe in the idea of a deity of any type?

you are starting to sound like me

@Davesnothere

I didn't ask you anything. I was merely reacting to your hostile post. You seem to be schooling the rest of us about how stupid the site is to ask if you believe in god, which you detest. You apparently feel that each word needs to be defined to the nth degree. As if there isn't a common colloquial understanding. Apparently that assumption offends your sense of intellectual integrity.

I suggest you work on managing your anger.

Shockwaverider -This is a valid and thought provoking post that does not deserve your unwarranted comment

@shockwaverider Assumptive of you. First, I am not angry at all, your reading anger into that, I detest questions which are ill framed as they are rather impossible to answer intelligently and honestly.
Second, i do not see any hostility in the post at all, it is a query, a pointed one. Why you view it as hostile is beyond me.
THIS "You seem to be schooling the rest of us about how stupid the site is to ask if you believe in god, which you detest." is nonsensical.

It is incoherent to ask if I believe in "God" without specifying WHAT god your talking about. There have been THOUSANDS of them in human history. DO you meanThor, or Ra, or Ganesh, or Tetragrammaton, or Jehovah, or Yaweh, or Allah?

To ask "Do you believe in God falsely assumes ALL people believe or disbelieve or fail to believe in the very same iddeation of God that you hold, and frankly I have no clue what that is. So I have no idea what you are asking me by that question, it is assumptive.

Further Shock, it is patently impossible for me to detest what I am not even able to define, if I am not even certain what the hell you are asking me about, I cannot detest it.

THIS "You apparently feel that each word needs to be defined to the nth degree." is more or less Philosophy 101, we cannot have a serious discourse about anything unless we agree beforehand what the heck we are talking about. If we use loaded language like "God" which carries with it the vast and individual definition of billions of believers of diverse faiths across an expanse of history, and then simply expect others to assume they will think of God as the writer does, we are in a bubble. No Hindu will see that as a Muslim, no Muslim as a neo pagan, no neo-pagan asa wiccan, no wiccan as a Buddhist; ad infintum.

"As if there isn't a common colloquial understanding."--there is not, in fact the religions disagree on definitions, and these disagreements have caused schism after schism over the centuries, causing the three main religions to split into multiple sects which do not agree on definitions or dogma. A "common colloquial understanding" would be just that, colloquial, ie a common usage WITHIN a sect or religion, like that of the Christian God, which is the Primary use of that Term "God"; so should one assume the site itself religiously bigoted, discriminating against those not of a Judeo Christian or western background on a Global platform?

Kind of why I pointed it out, no point in offending without intention is there?

No Shock, you did not ask me anything. You TOOK my question to your breast as hostile, when that was not it's intent, and then reacted with open hostility via your response "If you don't like it here, feel free to leave.", because what, I dared to question why it was phrased as such?

Your authoritarian roots are showing.

@HarrySlick Perhaps the content is to some but the tone and anger with which it was expressed are not appropriate. This is supposed to be a forum for civil discussion.

@Davesnothere You may not realize that writing words in all caps is the online version of shouting. In your second sentence, I am sure you meant to write you're. I can tell that from the context...

On not being angry - really? You start with, "I detested that opening question...". Followed by, "IF you cannot even define what you are talking about, or consider it beyond human understanding, how is it you can claim to know anything about it and keep your intellectual integrity intact?". Then, "WTF are you talking about when you use that term, or is it a smokescreen for a loose set of notions with no solid basis?".

So it seemed to me that you don't like it here. Your last reply is openly hostile. I'm not an authoritarian and neither are my roots. Chill.

@shockwaverider I did not use all caps, I used Ittermittant caps, which in online speak indicates emphasis.
You are probably correct, I have a TBI from my time in service and the Your, You're is something I am forever editing, THANKS, for the catch
Yes, I am not angry.
Why do you assume I am angry by saying I detest the formation of a question? I also said "VERY poorly framed "
I detest tea too, do you think I have some emotional dislike of tea, that I am angry at tea?de·test
verb
dislike intensely
No anger involved.

This really seems to be a BEE in your Bonnet.
Why is this ""IF you cannot even define what you are talking about, or consider it beyond human understanding, how is it you can claim to know anything about it and keep your intellectual integrity intact?"
Upsetting?
It is a pointed question. If you yourself cannot define God, and your asking me if I believe in it, how could I answer.

I oft use a term, "The Smoky God", because a great many people of faith follow this God. It is an undefined God, a God which cannot be defined, which is in fact beyond human comprehension, but which religions never tire of making claims about.
Which is oxymoronic, if God is beyond the keen of the human mind and yet human make endless claims they believe about the self same god model, they are openly contradicting themselves. I have found that when folks take issue with this point, they oft follow that notion, and have never been confronted with that before.

One of the early responders actuall confirmed that, btroje claimed it is a mystery to him, which I see as a claim that the God he believes in is MYSTERIOUS, a mystery, yet beyond doubt he has concrete ideas about that God.
Nothing is concrete in a mystery is it?

@Davesnothere Thank you for your service, Dave. I don't doubt your sincerity and I'll take you at your word. Let's just say we have very different communication styles and leave it at that.

@shockwaverider Sounds like a plan Shock, heres to hoping future communications are less problematic

@Davesnothere Agreed.