You are in a dark room and you hear what sounds like the pitter patter of raindrops falling somewhere in the distance. From this evidence you can be certain that it is raining outside, however you cannot know for sure without observing it for yourself. There is a remote possibility that the sound is coming from a stereo or somewhere else. Nomatter how certain you are about the sound being real rain, you will only ever know once you have gone to the source and either seen the rain or the stereo.

Likewise, I am certain that there are no gods. I’m convinced that the evidence shows them to be mere thinkings of the human mind. I’ll never know though.

I wouldn’t refer to this as gnostic atheism. Certainty has nothing to do with knowledge. Indeed, I would say I am certain that gods don’t exist, but I would never claim I know gods don’t exist.

Gnostic atheism puts forward the suggestion that concepts like gods can be disproven, or that they have been disproved already. Since the whole God concept has been placed out of reach (and given higher-than-thy attributes), it is illogical to claim that such a being definitely does not exist.

Put simply, the gnostic atheist claims that they know about things about this universe that have been bickered over for countless years.

As an atheist, I am asserting that there is no rational reason to believe in God/gods because there has yet to be any viable proof positive. It is less that I am 100% certain that there is no God or gods, and more that I am 100% certain that there has yet to be compelling evidence to the contrary.

I would argue that this is significantly different from agnosticism, in which lack of proof positive and lack of proof negative are given equal credence.