Gnostic atheism

Most atheists are agnostic atheists (agnostatheists) but rarely admit it. Agnostatheists who are the majority engage in extreme bullying against atheists who have knowledge of atheism (gnostoatheists or gnostic atheists, non Judeo-Chrstian gnostics but atheognostics). Agnostic atheists don't have proof of God and that suffices for them. Agnostic atheists lower the probability of God to negligible levels without to cancel it. Most agnostic atheists feel extremely offended when someone works on personhood and on the foundations of logic not understanding that the gained knowledge isn't only religious-centric. People who present themselves as gnostic atheists but only use agnostic atheist arguments are only fanatical atheists (strong in their opinion but not necessarily as strong philosophically).

True atheognostics (gnostic atheists) work on the study of personhood and the personhood-yielding computer which has Brodmann area and connectome (biological or digital) and is not a mereological simple neither a mere axiom (logical statement which in theism is also an infinite system) but a complex, the fundamentality of logical procedures which preexist the yielded personhood on the personhood-yielding computer (biological or digital brain) which thus has no exological/supernatural free will, on Landauer's principle and the physical impact of data-processing, on the impossibility of reversible computing because it lacks physical axiomatic prerequisites and it would generate both informational and thermodynamic entropy as a substantial system (non-simulation), on the necessity of topological space in the case of topological connectome (idealized brain; ideas from topological quantum field theory, complex topological systems have emergent properties; spacetime is more fundamental than the personhood-yielding computer because it provides the foundational base), on the impossibility of the supernatural because it lacks rigorously specific attributes and axiomatic prerequisites (storytelling is non-axiomatic with logical gaps and based on interpretationAl biases), on the prerequisites of the physical foundations (quantum foundations in our universe), on the non-unitarity (non-monolithicity) of logic (comparative and variable neologicism; mathematics and the geometries are proof systems; universes are based on substantiality systems with different prerequisites; the foundations of proof systems logic isn't the only possible logical foundations; logical eclecticism for proof systems isn't the only possible logic neither eclecticism is fundamental; see: experimental axiomatic systems, experimental logical systems, allomathematical proof systems, the inexistence of the universal axiomatic system because infinite mutually exclusive are logically possible and because any grouping wouldn't logically/actively engage them all [the set of all sets doesn't exist, neither other similar in nature infinite sets] etc.), an effort of collecting all possible axiomatic systems would require nontrivially infinite mathematical techniques [the omniaxiomatic collection isn't an achievable object]), etc.

The strong atheism pseudoconundrum

The vast majority of people who self-identify as strong atheists and gnostic atheists are using only agnostic atheist comments. They actually aren't truly gnostic atheists. We can say that a strong atheist is very certain of God's inexistence, but strong belief doesn't guarantee rigorous debunking.