No one can prove that god does, or does not exist. The difference between the terms atheist and agnostic has more to do with the understanding of the burden of proof. Both atheists and agnostics will admit that it's theoretically possible that god exists, but the atheist recognizes that when there's neither evidence for or against something that no one has ever seen or can prove, it's better to assume the negative position rather than the positive one.
For instance, I don't waste one second wondering if pink unicorns are real. Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Could pink unicorns exist? Sure, they could, but I'm not going to mentally hold open the possibility of their existence until there's a reason to do so. I'm not going to label myself a pink-unicorn agnostic just because it might possibly exist.
Now, let's apply this test in reverse. I'm telling you that there are 10 gods, each with different powers, fire, water, earth, etc. Are you atheistic toward my gods because you don't believe in them? After all, I could theoretically be correct so you should hold that possibility open in the back of your mind, right?
There are TONS of gods you don't believe in, I just took that one further than you. How does that make me dishonest and hypocritical?