How much could an extremely limited homogenised viral fungi know? ego seems all to the small

I don't think the differentiation between agnosticism and atheism needs to be divisive. The only difference so that as I can see is that agnostics will say either 1 'you can't prove the existence of god either way' or 2 'I am not aware of the evidence, therefore I think its only fair to remain agnostic until I feel better educated'. The atheists will say either 1' There is overwhelming amounts of evidence proving that god doesn't exist, or 2 'while it isn't possible to prove it by 100%, all the evidence suggests that no god exists'.

I think that there is no reason not to have this conversation. Its important to encourage conversation that involves critical thinking, and to be able to take criticism in the correct way. The only thing that is wrong to do here is to shut the conversation down.

It is a false issue. Some people just like to be judgmental of others.

The labels are important so as to best direct your species of critique. No point chiding a Catholic on a matter that requires free will or Calvinists who contradicts themselves by insisting on it.

No doubt a lot of overlap exists Atheist/Agnostic divide. I have heard people define their atheism in the same terms as I have defined my agnosticism. I also understand that there are theistic agnostics but nothing similar for atheists. For me, I am in the camp that believes that God, if such an entity exists, is an unknowable or definable entity. Any entity with greater abilities than we can currently understand may appear to be a God, but may in fact be an entity with faults and foibles (not a God). We could be easily fooled by these aspects of greater ability and still not be a God.

I don't think that people are trying to divide any religious people, just simply pointing out that they may belong to one or other religions.

We choose our own labels. Haven't observed any animosity between then two here.