The problem with your post is the definition of atheism not agnosticism. The terms answer two completely different questions. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. You said:
I never claimed to be an atheist I don't call myself anything. I can't claim to know the unknowable.
In this post you are indirectly implying that atheist are making a claim of some sort; you are, in a way, telling us what we believe. Atheism is a lack of belief in any god(s). It can include an active belief that there are no gods (strong or explicit atheism) as a subset of atheism, but it also includes people who neither believe in any god(s) nor believes there are no god(s) (weak or implicit atheism).
This redefining of the word atheist to only include strong atheist is a common tactic of some believers to try tell us what we believe in order to say that atheism requires as much faith as theism does...which it does not. It is also a tactic a LARGE number of people try to take in order to feel superior to both theists and atheists. This comic sort of illustrates the point:
Agnosticism claims that knowledge of the existence god(s) is unknowable. It has nothing to do with if you believe or disbelieve in any god(s). One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. I can't speak for everyone here, but I personally don't think you meant to violate the safe haven by posting that, but saying we are making a claim of any sort is a good way of ruffling feathers.