My questions is about how an atheist labels themselves in response to specific theistic claims as opposed to the general possibility of a god.
I understand the premise of agnostic atheism in that it does not refute that possibility of a god's existence. My question concerns defined self-refuting traits about the god such as; omnipotence, omniscience. Are certain defined traits sufficient to be gnostic about that god's impossibility?
Does one consider to be an gnostic atheist in response to specific theist claims such as the Christian/Islamic/Hindu/Greek pantheon/ etc etc god stories? Are any of them sufficiently self-refuting to a point where one can say, 'I know that doesn't exist; therefore, I am gnostic atheist in response to your theist definition of that god?'
I consider myself to be gnostic atheist to a majority of god's defined to me so far but agnostic atheist to the general possibility of a god.
Am I wrong or do I have a misunderstanding of the terms?
I think all deities are implausible enough to make deism a transitory phase. That will likely anger plenty of deists.
When you look at the number of religions and combine the fact they are for the most part mutually exclusive, you have to agree someone was lying. If one is a fabrication, is it not likely they are all a fabrication? To me, it seems most probably god(s) was created in man's image.
If there is a lack of evidence to prove any of the numerous other gods, why should we be compelled to create god which can not be disproved? At this point, is it not more likely we have been conditioned to believe in something and are simply grasping at straws to maintain that position?