>>3357569>Gnosticism is retarded tho.Gnosticism and gnosis are different things. I am gnostic, not gnosticistic,
>As an agnostic atheist, I'd rather agree with an agnostic theist than a gnostic atheist.About what?!?
>For atheist gnosticism, you would need an actual evidence of the non-existemce of a god, which we don't have yet.Which is everywhere.
>Since there is no evidence for god's existence either, I see no reason to believ in god and a lot of the events depicted in the bible can be scientifically refuted. Here, we may diverge, interestingly. To prove the non-existence of a god one need only disprove the opposite (a null hypothesis). Which (non-miraculous) events in the Bible do you feel cannot be reconciled with reality?
>But like Russel's teapot, we cannot know that there is no god.We can, and we do.
>Yet.I have gnosis; and of the things I have known, I have not known a god, nor anything that necessitates the existence of one.