Your post is fine in theory, but in fact the religious are beyond doubt about their beliefs even though there is no evidence except the evidence indicating that religion is made up. Worse, their religion causes them to treat us badly and to treat the whole world badly. So much so that they are a threat to it and us.
Furthermore, I think the "need" they feel for religion, both emotionally and morally, was inculcated in them along with the belief in it. In other words, they think they need it because they don't know any other way. Admittedly, there are some people who have reached a point in their lives where trying to talk to them about it would be worse than a waste of time, but the need to talk to the others is real.
This could just be me but if there was even the slightest chance that God existed I still would not worship him or any God regardless of the outcome of my final destination. Any God that is that evil, sadistic, manipulative, and destructive deserves no blind obedience from me or anyone for that matter. And if he did exist and that possibility came true, which I don't think it would, but if it did and I had to "stand before God to be judged" he would have a lot to answer for.
I have always just had a hard time respecting something that does nothing to deserve it. Especially a being that can only be proven to exist within the mind or imagination I should say... Trees, the moon, sun, stars, rocks, and everything else I've ever heard as the argument of proof is not proof at all. A tree only proves the existence of a tree not the existence of a God.
Sorry I just had an argument with my sister that tried to prove to me Gods existence with a tree. She has been at it for a week now and it's driving me insane. So I apologize if I seem a little cross.
Maybe add arrogance to your title. It seems to be the combination of the two that really fans the flames.
"I am smart, so I am right and that means X!"
Ryan E. got it spot on. Atheism is simply a single position on a specific topic. It certainly does not give you a degree in Correct. 0% is arrogance for any idea. Space/time is a heck of a lot more complicated than the human brain can even really think about. Just search: universe hologram, if you need something weird. You have your five senses and a chemical brain to process the entirety of the universe! How the heck can we know anything? All we have in our tiny corner of the universe is probability based on human standards.
For practicality's sake we all go with whatever evidence (or feeling) is most compelling to us. Chemical brain, yet again. The evidence of our senses show no proof of any human "god" being correct as presented, and disproves to varying degrees many religious claims. That's enough for me, and if someone wants to argue over the idea of 100% anything they're going to be wasting a lot of time. I don't debate belief, I debate the associated facts. Not much else makes any sense.
Yes, that's true. I hope you keep a door open for unicorns and fairies too.
Atheists do not believe in a god. It says nothing about whether or not a god is out there. If a god is out there, we welcome the evidence. Most atheists leave a small possibility for the existence of a divine power, like .01 percent. I guess we're all agnostics too?
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.