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.

From my POV they are practically the same, the difference is a philosophical detail that do not have any impact in real life decisions.

BUT

There are a lot of new age mystical or even people in doubt that uses the label agnostic to hide their religiosity. Then a lot of people mix this agnostic in doubt with the philosophical agnostic, most of conflict that i see comes from this misuse of the term.

Agnosticism is not a position of doubt is a position where a decision has been made regardless of believing status.
The agnostic (as the term was defined in its creation) is the one that refuses to believe or refuses to turn a belief into a real action, agnosticism does not speak about belief, speaks about knowing and not knowing, and says that only this is what matters for real life decisions.
Even if the real agnostic "feels" that a god exist (cultural indoctrination is difficult to get rid sometimes) he or she won't make decisions based on a feeling that lack knowledge.

Its The People's Front of Judea! #^$@%&/$#^&!

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.

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

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.

"Do atheists or agnostics really care what the other camp call themselves?"

Some do, to a nauseating hysterical degree. I don't know why. The reasons given when asked are usually centered around one or both posters declaring what s/he has arbitrarily decided the other person believes/thinks and proudly announcing that "I am different from you".

It's as pathetic as it is pointless. Unless you're a narcissist, I suppose. Then putting others down and elevating yourself is all that stands between yourself and depression.

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

I pay it no attention at all. Is that wrong?