Why gnostic atheism?

<+anarkhos> LeylaNousha, Why are you an atheist rather than an agnostic?
<+LeylaNousha> I tend to use the Smithian typology, which sees agnostic as an independent axis to atheism/theism.
<+LeylaNousha> For one.
<+LeylaNousha> Are you familiar?
<+anarkhos> LeylaNousha, I don't think so
<+LeylaNousha> George Smith. In his ontology atheism/theism are answers to the question 'Do gods exist?'
<+LeylaNousha> Whereas gnosticism/agnosticism are answer to 'Do I know if gods exist?'
<+LeylaNousha> I am a gnostic atheist in this system.
<+LeylaNousha> Here is why I am an a gnostic atheist, anarkhos, rather than an agnostic atheist.
<+LeylaNousha> I find myself in 2016 wondering what's up with the universe. One of the ideas available to me through culture is 'gods'.
<+LeylaNousha> When I interace with this question/concept it is often packaged in certain ways and there are often unstated references to an entire cultural framework that may not be up for discussion.
<+LeylaNousha> interact*
<+LeylaNousha> However, I think it is important to reject that historical/linguistic/cultural framework and look at the concept with fresh eyes.
<+LeylaNousha> The 'gods' concept appeared in the noosphere, it seems, as humans attempted to make sense of certain phenomena in the universe.
* +ebookclickbanks http://www.ebooksclickbanks.blogspot.com
<+LeylaNousha> Retrospectively, we understand with very high confidence virtuall all or all of the phenomena that led to earlier humans introduce this concept are well-explained through non-personal, non-conscious mechanisms. Further, we understand that our brain tends to personalize and anthropomorphize things.
<+LeylaNousha> So, before the 'gods' concept really gets to be a model, in this framework, its entire history is rejected in regards to useful insight into the universe.
<+LeylaNousha> Now, we can, afresh, introduce this concept as an explanatory model.
<+LeylaNousha> When we do that, we find it is not useful.
<+LeylaNousha> I cannot think of any reasons to be agnostic on this question.

I go further. The only reasons to truly be agnostic on this question, outside of the scope of universal skepticism that deviates from the statistical infernece possible through scientific observation, is that historical/linguistic/cultural context. I think a large portion of the agnostic effort is a submission to the repeated and intense efforts by established religions to remain relevant in a world in which their entire paradigm has become obsolete.