Why I'm a Gnostic atheist/ antitheist; rather than an "agnostic atheist".

The rational default
is that an all-powerful boogeyman does not exist.

Taking the position that one "could exist",
is to leave one's mind vulnerable to superstition and con artists.

Thus, it would be an irresponsible example to set for children and vulnerable-others.

It would also be a reckless indulgence in personal vulnerability, for those whom have had to work hard to kill the stubborn ghost of the "God" planted deep into their psyche by former indoctrinators. 

For the sake of health and personal responsibility, the needed position is "no";
rather than "unconvinced". 

Meanwhile, ...

I've noticed that
Abrahamics do not claimed to be agnostics
about
~all other alleged World-Creating Super-Beings~;

- which they technically can't prove don't exist.

So if anyone's going to give an antitheist grief about the burden of proof, it had better not be a monotheist; not even a singular-"God"-deist. 

I've also noticed that it's pretty rare to meet an intelligent adult ... who is "agnostic" about Santa Clause.

I think there's something to be said for consistency. 

Moreover, ...

If someone eventually proves a Super-Being exists,
I would still see no reason to assign a title of
~worshipful regard~ (ie "God").

This point is key.
So let's be clear about this.

Bestowing the title of "god/God" upon any entity (either real or imagined)
is very much like a queen "knighting" someone. 

 In that case, we start to call someone "Sir" or "Knight".

But the title "God" is far more grand.

It's an expression of ultimate reverence; a super-High-ness for that entity;

-and then a contrasting self-deprecation;
- a super-Low-ness of the speaker. 

But it's not actually possible for a being WORTHY of that level of regard (worthy to be rightly called "God") ... to even exist;
-not if we mean it literally.

This is the point Epicurus was making, when he pointed out logically that a being WORTHY of that title literally cannot exist.

It's also the framework for an unavoidably dysfunctional and self-abusive social dynamic.
(as Darkmatter2525 explained, in his video called "The Greater Insult"). (note: Dialogue for this video doesn't start until after 4:44)

Thus, no being whom even approaches a worthiness of the title ... would be willing to accept that sort of "relationship". 

Such a being might humor the title, after insisting we redefine it. But we can forgo those extra steps and just not commit that error in the first place.

No being worthy of literal worship
would accept literal worship.

Anyone who wants to be literally worshipped ... is automatically psychologically unqualified to be worshipped.

 It's an unhealthy psychology, and an unhealthy relationship paradigm.


Realizing this fact, ...

If I were ever convinced that some literal Universe-creating Super-Beings exist, ...

I'd regard them as a mysterious Super-Being(s).

From there, I might develop opinions about them.
But I still wouldn't call them "God"(s).

I wouldn't choose to have that relationship with them.

In fact, whenever I've asked entire debate groups if anyone can tell me the difference between:

pre-ancient, universe-tinkering/world-seeding super-aliens vs
"gods", ...

Neither theists or atheists could tell me the difference.

So then, what we really saying, when we talk about if any gods exist?

Some people  
will say that a "god", by definition, must be:
almighty, all-knowing, timeless, space-less, perfectly altruistic, and super-perfectly everything else.


And yet, even if someone's deity is described as such:
They still couldn't prove it has those traits.

That makes it worse. Because they're defining an entity ... based on traits that cannot be verified.

[and which happen to be mutually contradicting.]

Moving forward, ...

All-knowing-ness cannot be demonstrated.

The claim of having ~always existed~ can't be demonstrated either.

The claim of being literally limitless in power can't be demonstrated.

etc..

So how's a human ever going to prove something
that not even an unlimited being could prove about itself?

Thus, when they claim their "God" proved that it exists AND is a true "God", ...

No it didn't.
Not by their own definition, it didn't. 

Even if they had a 1-on-1 with such a being, ...
they'd have to take that entity's word for being:
any of those things.

In fact, even that hypothetical Super-Being himself would have to just assume that he knows everything.

If there's anything he doesn't know, he just wouldn't know that he doesn't know it.
---

When it comes to all those traits, ...

The super-being itself ... could not demonstrate those things. 

That task would be the proverbial "stone so heavy a god can't lift it".
  This logically proves that an omnipotent super-being cannot exist.


 
Lastly, 
consider these famous words from Epicurus:

 

“Is (the one you call) "God" willing to prevent

evil, but not able?


 Then he is not omnipotent.


Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.


Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?


Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?”

----

I would simply go further, to say:

 In every conceivable scenario,
 
unless we're going to renegotiate the meaning of the word, so that openly fallible people can all be referred to as gods and goddesses  ...
 

we could never have a situation where it makes good sense to say "Behold! A GOD!". 

Someone unworthy may embrace the title.
But someone worthy would reject it. 

 A psychological healthy human would refuse to use that word.
 They would abstain from that mutually abusing dynamic.  
------------

In other words, to translate the question "do any literal gods exist?" into what we're really asking:

What we're really asking is:

Isn't it possible ...
that there just might be ...
some really impressive sentient being out there somewhere ...
who it would make good sense to enter into a mutually-abusive relationship paradigm with?"

My answer to that is simply:
 No.