Oh, I don't think it's exaggerated at all. In fact, you just proved my point. You said what you've been conditioned by others, and perhaps yourself, to say. Thanks for the help.
Of course I realise that such a claim is not very helpful, as it cannot be proven wrong, since each time you answer I could just say "See! I knew you'd say that!" But just because it is not a viable argument/tactic used in debates does not mean it is not true.
Agnosticism is really atheism; the philosophical distinction between two is negligible.
Well had you said "the difference between the two is, in practice,
negligible" I would have, at least in part, agreed. But the philosophical distinction? It's miles apart for me. While I may live my life (practically speaking) like there is no God whom I must check with before doing something, nonetheless I consider atheism (philosophically speaking) even more unacceptable than theism. If I had to choose between theism and atheism, I'd be a theist (well, a deist). Thankfully, I don't have to make that choice though, because as hard as you try, and as hard as atheists like George Smith try, you cannot eliminate the middle ground between theism and atheism.