I have some questions for the posters here.

[Angrboda]

Saying that I don't know something would be agnosticism.  Claiming that it's impossible to know something is an entirely different assertion.  Personally, I think it's a bit of a rabbit hole, but I am interested in how a claim focusing on the individual ends up being insisted as comment on the world at large.

If I ask somebody what the proper weight for some bird is, they might say they don't know.  They have a vague idea or general opinions, but they'd have to get back to me on that, or I'd have to ask someone else, or look somewhere else, if I was looking for a fact.  Maybe two reasonable and well informed people disagree over that fact, even.  Here is our bird weight agnostic and our dueling bird weight gnostics.

A person who says, instead, that no one can know the proper weight for some bird...is making a different claim than any of those three people.

TLDR version...I'm not so sure we can blame the agnostics for ruining reality.  

Okay, I sorta agree, in part. Anyone who says "It is impossible to know if any gods exist" is way over the line. There is no way for anyone to KNOW that it is impossible to know if any gods exist. If any exist, it is at least possible it has a way of verifying its existence.

BUT...and this is a huge BUT...I can say without equivocation that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO GODS.
Think about it. How can one possibly verify that there are NO GODS.?

Not knowing how one can know that there are no possible gods is not the same as knowing that it is not possible to know that there are no gods.  The former seems to be an argument from ignorance, and is invalid.  If this is how you know that it is not possible to know that there are no gods, then you do not know.  How do you know that I cannot know that there are no gods?

Let me pose a hypothetical.  Let's say that I tell you that I have an ironclad deductive argument against the existence of gods.  Obviously, you don't know what my argument is.  Equally as obvious is that you're claiming that I cannot have an ironclad deductive argument against the existence of gods.  So the question becomes, how exactly can you know that I have no ironclad deductive argument against the existence of gods when you don't know what I know?

I am saying that you CANNOT have an ironclad deductive argument that NO GODS EXIST.

You have a huge advantage over me here. You can show that I am full of Shinola by presenting such an argument.

So...have a go at it.

I don't need to present any argument to show that you are full of shinola. All I need to do is point out that you have presented no argument or justification for your belief that you know that it is impossible to know that there are no gods. Asking me to show that you are wrong is an invalid attempt to shift the burden of proof for your claim onto me. You made the claim, you have the burden of demonstrating the truth of your claim. So far all you've done is assert a claim. Now you need to show that you're not simply making vapid claims by trotting out your proof that I have no such argument. I'm under no obligation to do anything. You, on the other hand, are.

Present your argument or proof or have your claim summarily dismissed. That's how it works.

You're welcome to be skeptical of me. You're not welcome to claim I cannot have such an argument without justification. So what is your justification?

(And while you're at it, learn how to quote correctly. It's not that hard.)