If you believe most agnostics are atheists, would you help them along the path to realizing they are atheists?
I think it is everyone's job to help one another understand the truth through language and other forms of communication.
Obviously this isn't my only goal. But it's one which can be pursued on occasion through moment to moment civil interactions.
I think it's people's duty to help others understand when they hold the same or opposite view. And also understand why. That way whoever seems to have the poorer argument might no longer use it by switching their perspective to the side with the stronger argument.
I'm all for helping people realize they are an atheist if they don't believe a God exists and are agnostic on the matter. I'm fine helping people recognize they are a white supremacist or flat-earther if they fit those categories in terms of their beliefs too. For the more questionable beliefs to me, I might probe and question how or why the person's holds such views. But like I said before, I try to be civil.
Demonstrating goodwill is essential for getting a person you are personally interacting with to take you seriously. Part of the problem today is that our culture is motivated and monetized largely by a person's ability to have people notice them, even if the person is being noticed for a false or unproductive reason.
A significant percentage of the internet today is click-bait. The value of it is poor. But what does that matter to the creators? The moment people click, the creator of the click-bait gets revenue.
Another problem is that many people whom we commonly respect, have a goal of communicating to others while appearing to communicate to one specific individual who is just a ploy.
These conversations I'm describing can often be seen on talk shows or news interviews. The people who are interviewed don't go on the news show just to convince to the host of the show of something. Often that goal isn't remotely in the picture. Often guests go on those shows to speak to their viewers. And in such an interaction, the viewers often take notice when the speaker does a poor job of convincing the talk show host or news anchor of something but behaves in a flagrant or gregarious manner. It might not convince the person holding the interview. But it convinces and inspires the viewers of the conversation. And that's often the main goal.
Meanwhile, the news shows in secret often book the gregarious people because their shows, like the click-bait internet stories succeed or fail based on the quantity of viewers. Not the quality of information.
When we elect someone like a President, our country should want someone who is actually good at speaking to one individual in-person. It really doesn't matter (apart from the politician remaining popular) how awesome a 3rd party viewer finds a person's performance in an interview.
And this basic understanding is really becoming difficult for many people to grasp if they even grasp it at all. And I find it VERY troubling.
I especially find these troubling signs in Donald Trump. Trump is so clearly analogous to a provocateur politician. But many see him as an astute successful businessman. Something he is NOT and never has been. But one false narrative, which has been reinforced for decades, obfuscates how brazenly inappropriate and lacking he is in another manner.
What also plays into his hands is that the nation has simplified the useful qualities of a President to someone who is fresh or new as opposed to something who is actually well-qualified and a good candidate based on legitimate evidence.