Hey Anti-Theists! Prove Your Claim

[Neo-Scholastic]

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of 'gnostic atheism', a metaphysical claim. I suppose that puts anti-theism into the basic "I'm against anything related to theistic belief" catagory, for any number of reasons, even though the existence of a god or gods cannot be formally disproven.

Why do you think this burden doesn't apply to you? You believe in a single, specific god and your belief system explicitly excludes all other possible belief systems and gods as being false. If we have to prove that all gods don't exist, you are just as burdened with proving that all other gods don't exist, and that's just in addition to all the things about your god you have the burden of positively proving. Your burden of proof is always going to be greater than even the most convinced strong atheist, and there's nothing you can do about it except satisfy that burden. That being the case, perhaps you should stop trying to shift the burden. You've more than got your work cut out for you.

The burden of proof has been satisfied long ago in pagan philosophy with Plotinus and later in Christendom when Aquinas developed these into an overall satisfying natural theology. Since you apparently do not accept these proofs, I can only conclude that you are either ignorant of them or are swayed by modern mis-characterizations of these arguments

Since my belief is based primarily on reason applied to common experience, I can accept there may be other supernatural agents below the fundamental level. I look to first principles and do not find intermediate and contingent agents of much interest. Even with regards to a pantheon, even the Pre-Socratic philosophers recognized the need for an overarching principle.