Atheists do not have an excuse for preaching atheism

I think we have agreement that "preaching" is advocating a position by exhortation, which is demanding agreement without giving reasons. There is a question of what constitutes an "excuse." I think the context of the resolution makes it clear that we are talking about an excuse being a "valid reason." "The dog ate my homework." is always "an excuse," but it s only a valid reason if the dog really did eat your homework. My argument is summarized as follows: P1. Christians believe that salvation is all-important and must be advanced. P2 Christians believe that belief in religion is a choice. P3. Since the choice is not a product of logic, they must preach to inspire a non-believer to take a leap of faith. P4. Therefore, the excuse Christians have for preaching is that it is consistent with their premises (1) and (2).. P5. Atheists believe that facts and logic are all-import and must be advanced. P6. Preaching is demanding that belief be arrived at without logic, but by choice. P7. Therefore, atheists have no excuse for preaching because preaching contradicts their premise (5). Consider the resolution, "Christians have no excuse for hating anyone." Fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell was asked if he hated atheists. He replied without hesitation to the effect, "No, Christians hate the sin, but not the sinner." The proposed resolution about Christians is therefore affirmed as being an inevitable consequence of a fundamental belief of Christianity. Con disputes little in my claims (1 ... 7). I think Con's arguments are summarized as follows. I'm sure Con will correct me if I am wrong. Con is granting that while atheists preaching is not excusable with reference to a fundamental belief in logic, there is an independent way it is excusable: C1. Atheists fear and hate Christians. C2. The fears and hatred of Christianity are valid. C3. Atheists preach as an emotional response to (C1) and (C2). C4. (C3) is more important than the principle that facts and logic should prevail (P5). C5. Therefore, atheists preaching against religion is excused. In these summaries, there are some qualifications. a. Not all Christians preach, and the ones that do may not preach all the time. This is true, but the argument is only about the circumstances of preaching, and when it is and is not excusable. b. All Christians do ultimately require a leap of faith, as do all religious people. The definition of religious belief implies that some aspects are not provable. c. Not all atheists fear and despise Christians. I don't. But all atheists deny that leaps of faith are justified. Con argued that since Christianity is wrong, there is no excuse for advocating it in any way, preaching it or not. Consequently if atheists have no excuse for preaching atheism, they are at worst equal with Christians in that regard. Con drafted the resolution and failed to include anything about Christians having an excuse to preach, so Con's argument, if true, affirms the resolution that we are debating, that atheists have no excuse. Beyond that, Con's argument equivocates upon "excuse." I am arguing that atheist preaching is contrary to a fundamental premise of atheism, that facts and logic ought to prevail. Christian preaching is consistent with their fundamental premise that religious belief is a choice. Thus Christians have the excuse that preaching is consistent with what they believe, while atheist preaching contradicts the fundamental atheist belief that facts and logic ought to prevail. That brings me to the error in Con's argument. The error is in C4, that emotional response is a valid reason to abandon a principle of using facts and logic. If one accepts emotional response as trumping logic, then one must also accept a religious person's deep emotions that religion is correct in validly trumping the logic against religious belief. If Con's argument is true, than it validates religion. I accept that some atheists are quite emotional. That is understandable, but not excusable when it comes to opposing religion. Atheists, no matter how upset, have no excuse for preaching the equivalent of "If you believe in religion, God will smite thee." It amounts to that if one demands abandoning reason as a motivation. Con argues, "Let me very strongly emphasize that any argument he can make that atheists aren't doing a good thing by getting rid of religion, or that they aren't attacked, is entirely irrelevant. All that matters is what the majority of atheists think is true, what they think they are doing, etc." Wrong, atheism is the agreed-upon and universally accepted definition, not what an alleged "majority" of atheists feel. Con only recited a Twitter poll of her friends. That's reminiscent of a New York Times columnist expressing astonishment when Bush was elected, because she didn't know a single person who voted for him. Some atheists feel very upset and some atheists preach; it doesn't change the definition of atheism. I think a majority of atheists are not so upset, and surely not consumed with a hatred of religion. I think most atheists are preoccupied with more important things, like making money. I think very few atheists preach, because few let passion overwhelm logic. But it doesn't matter what the percentages are. If it is just one or a majority, there is never an excuse for lapsing into an irrational appeal against something believed unreasonable. To put this into perspective, Japan is simultaneously the most religious country in the world (98%) and the most atheist country (70%). Clearly, on an emotional plane, atheism does not require hatred of religion. In Japan, religion is respected as a cultural institution, and, I think, as a valuable metaphor. Shinto has a spirit living in just about everything, and while few people believe that literally, they think it has value as a concept. Con argues that it is young atheists who tend to preach, and youth is considered an excuse for diminished punishment of crimes. Atheism is a philosophical position demanding reliance on logic. If a youth abandons logic, then they are abandoning atheism is favor of a different doctrine, hatred of religion. Imagine a youth who fancies himself an earnest pacifist. In his passion for pacifism he decides to "kill for peace." That is not a valid excuse for pacifists killing people, because it violates the fundamental principle of pacifist belief. What it establishes is that people can proclaim themselves pacifists without embracing the necessary principles. The same is true of atheists who preach. They are confusing atheism with blind religious hatred. Con broadens the argument, "Atheists do not view religion as something that just makes a few mistakes. They view it as holding back all of humanity, as weakening minds, as being used to justify violence, homophobia, sexism, racism, nationalism, war, genocide, etc. ... There could be no better excuse for assertiveness than trying to do away with a mentality that threatens to destroy the world." What this asserts is that atheism is the same thing as blind hatred of religion. I disproved that with the example of Japan. Con provided no unbiased polling data to prove that was true even in the United States, and if it was true it wouldn't change the definition of atheism. Con is arguing that atheism equates to religious hatred, and religious hatred is in fact a religion in itself. As a religion, Con maintains, atheism is fully justified in using all the irrational leaps of faith accorded to any other religion. Con provided the definition of atheism at the outset. It is a philosophical position, not a pseudo-religion. I'm not willing to convert atheism to a religion, and neither should anyone else. Atheists have no excuse for demanding leaps of faith.