I know that there are a few threads where this has been discussed but, I was watching this and thought that Matt Dillahunty made some interesting points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7ohbrPQ7HU
Around 18:20 the interesting part starts and ends around 26:00.
Atheism and agnosticism are not in conflict except for an emerging form of agnosticism, that he discusses, that asserts that they have the most logical position. Are we really in conflict?
For disclosure's sake, I did not nor will I watch all two hours of that clip.
But between those two points of the clip in talking about "conflict," the intentions of what we believe and what we know, and inherently various titles and definitions for Agnosticism and Atheism they do make some good points to discuss.
From my chair inherently Agnosticism and Atheism are adversarial. No matter the level of knowledge (as more than just a subset of belief but also weight granted to that knowledge) the whole idea of Atheism irregardless of the flavor is to make a determination. There are dozens of subset titles applied to Atheism but really we are talking about practical belief that there is no God or Gods. So by reason, that is adversarial to any flavor of Agnosticism as they conclude we cannot know that there is or is not God or Gods.
The play on words, and titles, to blend these conclusions basically means blending where someone is in relation to what they know (or think) against what they believe (from whatever motivation.)
Just as all Theists do not agree... at all... about the nature and disposition of God or Gods, neither do Atheists on "lack of belief." How the knowledge and thought process got an Atheist to the conclusion that there is not God or Gods does not require an exclusive one path only approach. For some it may be a thought process on what we think of humanity's knowledge base in the areas of science, for others it very well may be an emotional response to a terrible event (or chain of events,) for others it may be evaluation of what theology tells us against other academia. The motivations to end up Atheist are just as plentiful as how humanity originally conceptualized life and death, purpose, the "afterlife," and the notion of God or Gods in thousands of different religions over all of human history.
Agnostics on the other hand have a singular common theme that does not pit them against one another (in terms of level of knowledge or thought process against as a subset of various beliefs.) If Agnostics conclude that we cannot know if God or Gods exist or not, then ultimately all other considerations are based on whatever new information or discuss or thought process is presented. If you change in conclusion, odds are you are not Agnostic any longer.
If you conclude that the logical position puts Atheists and Agnostics closer to one another, especially as compared to Theism, then that is not necessarily bad. But the flip side to that is the argument from the point of view of Agnostics. Since Agnostics assume we cannot know these things with any certainty, then inherently Atheism and Theism are flip sides of the same coin. Atheism believes there are no God or Gods, while Theism believes there are God or Gods. Either way, it take belief to make those determinations outside of what we can possibly know in a mortal state. In terms of systems of belief or rejection of those systems of belief, there is no way to prove either one in terms of systems of process (science or other academia.)
So really, we are all speculating based on where we are in the areas of knowledge and thought from all of human history, as subsets of beliefs that have been crafted, changed, and arguably improved over all of the same human history. That is a good point, but does not remove the adversarial nature between Atheism and Agnosticism.