I suppose your right, I can pretend to be ignostic about evoluiton.
Yes.
Or you could be genuinely ignostic about that. In which case a meaningful discussion would depend on an agreement in which meaning the term is used for purposes of this discussion.
Or you could be mistaken in your assumption that you know what the other person means when saying "evolution" (since, as you rightly pointed out, it is used in many different definitions, not all of which can intuitively identified by the context). Which would cause major miscommunication.
Or - as we observe here frequently - you (and I don´t mean you, GrowingSmaller) could even be completely uneducated about a well-defined term such as "evolution theory", yet try to discuss it as though you were.
Do you think that in
this post Unreal is genuinely ignorant of the meaning of "supernatural".
I try my best to abstain from mind-, motive- and intention reading, and in cases where I am dependent on it, I always do it in favour of the person in question, i.e. I am assuming the best motive I can summon up.
Oris he onto a method here, i.e. for every "God" sentence consider every possible interpreation and remain non-commital until afinal and precise definition is given (if that is he accepts that there might be an end in view).
As I´ve told you before, the question whether a certain definition is sufficient and necessary for a conversation depends greatly on its purpose. In my experience, a serious discussion about philosophical subjects does require precise definitions (simply because people are very serious about their worldviews). Thus, unless we find ourselves in a small talk situation (when people are not really seeking to understand the person opposite but are just doing conversation for conversation´s and entertainment´s sake) this is exactly what imo we are better off doing: working with precise definitions.
Thus, if a person insists on me being precise about the definitions I use my terms in, I am inclined to think he´s taking me serious and is serious about understanding my worldview before he discusses it. I wouldn´t assume he´s playing a game - I would assume he wants to understand, and would feel complimented rather than being played tricks at.
Just a word concerning the follow-up requests to define the terms used in the definition: The same goes accordingly - particularly since those terms tend to be used in definitions that are exclusive to the worldview in question.
Apparently certain holders of certain worldviews are not aware how alien their concepts and sub-concepts are to certain persons who do not hold those worldviews. They feel everybody must understand them intuitively - simply because they make so much sense, are so significant and meaningful to them themselves.
My personal experience is: All those defining terms ("supernatural", "ominscient", "omnipotent", omnibenevolent", "self-existing", "eternal"...) in the end turn out to be defined by the god concept of the person holding it as it is vice versa, and therefore turn out to be not really helpful for a meaningful discussion. Prime example: "God" is defined as being "Love" or "Good" or "Justice", and when I ask for the definition of "Love" or "Good" or "Justice" I hear "God defines what "Love" or "Good" or "Justice" is."
Bottom line: My question "God? What do you mean??" serves two purposes: Making sure I understand those who want a serious consideration of their concepts, and making sure I am not about to engage in a discussion about a non-concept that´s based on terms mutuallly defining each other, and hence is just word game.