I seem to have made you angry. It wasn't my intention.

"You don't get to" is a figure of speech, pointing out that to make the claim is nonsensical. You are of course at liberty to make the claim and, since it makes no sense, I am free to ignore it (which I wouldn't be if it were actually a compelling argument).

It's very simple. It's well known that "X does not exist" is never provable in the same way as "X exists" is. In the latter case we can present X itself and say "look, it exists", end of story. In the former, there's always the possibility that we didn't look in all the places X could be, that we failed to properly define X or were looking for it the wrong way, etc. You attempted to use this to say that atheists are claiming to "know the unknowable". I'll quote your original comment:

> Atheists make precisely the same mistake as deists, claiming to know the unknowable. Agnostics have the most compelling argument.

What I have been pointing out is the fallacy of thinking that the fact that "X does not exist" is not provable with the same finality as "X does exist" somehow means that "X does not exist" is not a question that is open to analysis on the basis of evidence and reason. Questions of that nature are very much open to such analysis, so that argument falls flat.

Note that you haven't asked at all what evidence and reasoning my conviction that the God of the bible does not exist is based on. Rather, you have continued to assert that this belief of mine cannot have any basis, using the same flawed reasoning. I'd be happy to discuss that evidence and weigh it against any evidence you're aware of for the contrary view. That isn't argument from authority, it's argument from evidence. You just haven't shown any interest in engaging with it.

As to the definition of agnosticism, it can be defined either way and makes no difference to the refutation of your flawed reasoning above. I simply think that the definition I gave (a mainstream one, but not the only one) is useful if you're concerned with the "unknowability" of nonexistence as you appear to be. It allows you to make it clear that theism is a belief of the form "X exists" and can therefore in theory be proven absolutely by displaying the object (there's God right there, say hello, clearly he exists, you're looking right at Him) although nobody has done so, while atheism cannot in principle be demonstrated true in that way. With my definition of agnosticism that comes out as "theists can be agnostic or gnostic, whereas atheists can only be agnostic". With your definition of agnosticism you lose the ability to make that point so succinctly. However it remains just as true.

Now, if you have anything to say that actually addresses any of the points I've made, or you would like to present any evidence or reasoning that might cause me to reevaluate my atheism, I'd be happy to continue. But if all you can produce at this stage is further rants I won't reply.

Edit: It occurs to me that you haven't explicitly stated that the negative existential is the reason you consider the atheist position a claim to "know the unknowable". I've assumed that because it's the only argument I'm aware of anyone having made for this claim, and it's a commonly presented one. Also, you haven't presented any alternative justification. There is, however, the possibility that you have some other reason for thinking atheists are claiming to "know the unknowable", and if so I'm keen to hear it.