My guess is that the theists in her life are beating her up with the notion that she "can't prove god doesn't exist". That is usually why people resort to agnosticism. The problem, of course, is that this implicitly includes acceptance of the idea that the burden of proof is on the non-believer.
You need to not worry so much about labels. It's human to label, but don't let the label be the entirity of how you explain yourself.
Your post is pretty vague and thus is being picked at. It's a very generalized complaint, after all. And the implication, by posting this here and with the wording you used, is that it's HERE that you're seeing ignorance. By not specifying who, you imply the whole community is part of it.
I personally disagree with the idea that we don't need to argue. We don't need to be cruel or terribly rude, but discussion on a wide scale is how societies grow and change. Where would our philosophical framework be if people like Socrates didn't stir things up? Where would science be if Galileo and his peers didn't come out and say, "No, you're wrong, here's why"?
If you want to call yourself an agnostic, most people will know what you're talking about so don't worry too much.
Whenever we become defensive or angry after hearing something, we (everyone, as a people) need to find out WHY it makes us uncomfortable so we can face the real issues rather than bickering over semantics.
okay, but I would rather be an ignorant atheist than an ignorant believer.
I think we cannot know all, BUT the religious claim to either know all through some magic pixie in the sky, or they personally know the pixie who knows all.