There aren't self-serving arguments for atheism (either*).
Fear of hell: This is a (bad) argument for Christianity, i.e. you're going to hell so you need to accept that Jesus died for your sins (which doesn't say anything about whether that's true). Christians turn this around as a strawman on atheists, and say they are atheists because they don't want to go to hell, but that doesn't make much sense once you dig below the surface, because they're also rejecting the possibility of going to heaven (which is a pretty strong emotional appeal for Christianity).
It's especially ironic for Christians to try to pin this on atheists when you hear plenty of atheists speak about being traumatised by their fear of hell (both while they were Christians, and during their deconstruction). And just a reminder that trauma doesn't say much about whether something is true. Someone could still fear threats that were always empty, from an abuser that's long gone, with them knowing this full well. Many atheists were also ostracised by their community during their deconstruction. If anything, many people are very strongly motivated to not question their religious beliefs, due to emotional reasons.
Being creeped out at the prospect of God's omniscience: I haven't seen this being presented as a serious argument by atheists. It's more just something to think about, that's mentioned in passing.
There is also a more serious argument here: if someone thinks God sees everything they do and everything they think, and would punish them for thinking the wrong thing (including thinking that God doesn't exist), do we really expect that person to be able to think clearly and honestly about God's existence? No. They would try to suppress any doubts they have. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, but it is a belief system that very explicitly and strongly discourages you from questioning it. If a belief system is false or unjustified, such discouragement sure would be a nice trait for it to have (for its spread and its continued existence), because it prevents people from figuring out that it's false. This argument wouldn't be about self-interest.
Problem of evil: (Why does evil or unnecessary suffering exist with a powerful loving god.) This isn't about self-interest, it's an inconsistency in religious claims.
Divine hiddenness: (Why doesn't everyone knows of God's existence if we're punished for not knowing or if he wants a relationship.) Like the above, this isn't about self-interest, it's an inconsistency in religious claims.
Omnipotence paradox: (God creating a stone he cannot lift.) Maybe I'm overly dismissive of it, but I'd consider this "baby's first counter-apologetics" (at least by modern standards). People thought about this is in my high school, or maybe even primary school. It's a fun little paradox, and it may be useful in establishing what exactly omnipotence means, but that's about it. It's certainly not on par with the problem of evil or divine hiddenness (which are two of the primary arguments against Christianity). And this also isn't about self-interest.
What do you even mean by "self-interest"? Most of the examples you listed is about consistency of a worldview. If that's "self-interest", then we can probably label any method to gain knowledge to be "self-interest"... which I suppose it kind of is, but under such an interpretation, you'd be asking for philosophical arguments while implicitly excluding all philosophical arguments, which would be self-contradictory.
These aren't arguments "for atheism"
These are arguments against specific theistic claims, e.g. of an all-loving all-powerful deity.
None of these lead to the conclusion that no gods exist, as strong atheism is commonly defined. All of these even allow for the possibility of the existence of some other deity.
Well, you did say "I am defining Atheism as the positive claim that God does not exist", not "no gods exist". If you specifically mean the Christian God, and only the Christian God, then one might indeed consider these arguments to be "for atheism", but I somewhat doubt that you'd find even a single atheist that would define atheism like that (if not from the start, then once you clarify what that definition would actually entail). It certainly isn't a common definition, especially because it would allow for belief in the god of any other religion. I'm pretty sure every atheist I've ever spoken to would agree that, while this may include not accepting the existence of the Christian God, their atheism entails not accepting the existence of any god (whether they take the strong position of "no gods exist", or not). So if you define it just in reference to the Christian God, you might want to reconsider your definition.
* What I said may also apply to the Muslim God, to varying degrees, and possibly to other religions (you didn't specify which god you're talking about, and "the only one that exists" wouldn't really answer that question). Although there isn't really a "the" God in either Christianity or Islam, since there are a wide range of beliefs about the nature of God within those religions. That's why I focused more on the existence of a god with certain traits, instead.
Arguments "for atheism"?
As someone who takes the position that no gods exist, the only argument "for" that is the default position and the burden of proof.
If someone want to claim that there exists some deity with certain traits, the burden would be on them to justify it. Until they do, we should stick to the default position of "no gods exist".
The burden of proof is where it is, and the default position is what it is, because you cannot prove that no gods exist, especially given the possibility of gods that don't interact with material reality in any way, whose existence we can say nothing about, so we have no reason to accept their existence, and every reason to reject it.
Similarly, I take the position that no Yetis exist, no large creatures exist within Loch Ness, there are no invisible fairies all around us, there is no goblin named Roland in my closet, there is no invisible unicorn in my backyard, etc. I could say that we would expect to find certain evidence/traces of these things (e.g. footprints in my backyard), and we don't have that (and we can certainly do that for certain God claims, too). But that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist. One could also make a claim where we wouldn't expect to see evidence, or adjust the existing claim to make sense of why there isn't evidence, e.g. the unicorn doesn't leave footprints, or the footprints are also invisible.
One could also, more generally, discuss what best explains the evidence we have, but what I wrote above is in line with that, and makes the case for Occam's razor: that we should reject explanations that don't explain any evidence, which only explains evidence we can already more easily explain by other means, or which can arbitrarily be swapped out with a comparable claim that explains the evidence equally well.
