I think people become too invested in labels. It's like people that have a desire to label sexuality or gender in a binary (or even trinary) way. People identify in ways that are not always commensurate with the precise meaning of language and they do so in a way that is often commonly understood even though it is not technically correct. That is, it is "correct" in the sense of common usage, it is just not correct in the literal meaning of words. It's like someone saying "But I don't fear gays, so I'm not a homophobe!" (Using that example because of course you absolutely are NOT that) Simply allow people to label themselves and stop trying to box people into a particular niche.
The issue is when you give people too much leeway, it leads to misunderstanding. It's important to nail down these sorts of things when you go into debates, and it's important to establish a framework we can all work in at the same time. Working with many different frameworks and trying to interact is cumbersome.
How often to self-described agnostics go into threads where Atheism/Religion is an issue and say "I'm not an Atheist, I am agnostic - I don't pretend to know whether or not there is a God, so I don't give God any value unless evidence is presented to me that sways me".
They lord this position over Atheists, as though this is fundamentally different than what Atheists believe - when in fact, more often than not, this is the exact same thing atheists believe. Removing this barrier of division is important to me, on an ethical level and on a cathartic level - it's really a nice feeling seeing people realize that this wall they create is unnecessary.
Also, so many people just don't want to be atheists because of the baggage that comes with it, and I can appreciate that - but as soon as you start making value claims about atheism, then all bets are off.
Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of deities in general, not lack of belief in a specific god (no religious preference?). As such, an atheist may acknowledge that it is impossible to be absolutely certain that there is no god, but thinks it very improbable and lives on the assumption that there is not one.
Did I say something different? That sounds snarky, but I am curious if I came off wrong.