Atheists do not have an excuse for preaching atheism

I thank Con for the rebuttal, though I'd like to apologize and point out that the reason I made the distinction between exhortation and extortion was to avoid any reader confusion. Nothing Con did wrong at all. I'll note here as well as later so readers don't miss it, that it's now agreed upon that atheists feel threatened by religion and feel religion is very bad (actually, this second agreement was only implied). I have presented multiple solid excuses for preaching by atheists in this argument, as well. CON'S REBUTTAL 1. The religious feel that the only way they can do good is by preaching, which is why they have an excuse for it. IE, he says it isn't simply enough that they feel they're doing right, they need a specific reason for preaching as opposed to simply debating. 2. Next, he admits that atheists feel they are being attacked--take careful note of that. However, he says there is no excuse because he thinks the feeling is unwarranted. He also says that religion is just something that makes a few mistakes. Let me also note that Con has not taken an obvious stance on whether most atheists feel they are doing good by getting rid of religion, however it is implied, so I will assume we agree. It's a rather obvious truth, besides. 3. Next, Con is right in that he has no duty to defend his statement except for to focus on the resolution itself. However he continues to assert that Christians have an excuse because of what they think, and continues to set the standard (and it's a widely held one) by doing so. RESPONSES 1. I grant that the religious may have *more* of an excuse to preach, however let me note that many Christians nonetheless attempt to debate or argue their religion or the existence of their god, or their religious thoughts in general. So while preaching is preferred, it is not the "only way" as my opponent has claimed. It is simply the one many Christians chose. Indeed, I doubt many Christians sit down and think about the logic for preaching my opponent just offered--it comes naturally. 2. 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. While atheism doesn't require the leap of faith religion does, and so atheists are more subject to evidence, they are human and so judge by the same basic things as anyone else--ie, theists. If their judgment is poor, poor judgment makes for a fine defense. It is a far cry from malevolence or disregard for the freedom of others, which would make the preaching truly inexcusable. ETC Something to remember--atheists do not need to have the best excuse. It simply needs to be enough of an excuse for the "crime" committed, preaching. Atheists make a point of using logical arguments and evidence to a degree not often seen in political groups. Compared to groups such as the religious, various political parties, etc, atheists use logic and argument very much. So atheists, by default, do a good job, they simply slip. But who slips, and why? I contend that (and my experience will likely match up with Roy's) that the most assertive and loud atheists who "preach" tend to be: young, angry, defensive, fed up. Not necessarily all at once. Is youth an excuse? To an extent. It's considered an excuse for terrible crimes by the legal system, I think I can safely consider an unfinished brain as an excuse for being too assertive and loud with one's opinions. Is anger and defensiveness an excuse? The anger comes from feelings of rawness, hurt, from seeing and feeling injustice at the hands of religion. While my opponent writes off religion as "tribal instincts" that just make mistakes sometimes, the vast majority of atheists disagree...strongly. I refer my opponent once again to my links and quotes, especially the long rant which was heartily agreed with by countless atheists. 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. A recent example was the role of religion (especially the Mormon religion) in Prop 8 being approved, and the backlash against it. To atheists, religion doesn't just "make a few mistakes", it actively participates in destroying lives for it's purposes. I also refer my opponent to films like Religulous and Waiting for Armageddon. Atheists have every reason to fear that those with power (even if it's just one vote, especially if it's a Senate vote or a finger on The Button) are delusional and religiously motivated. I can't stress this enough. There could be no better excuse for assertiveness than trying to do away with a mentality that threatens to destroy the world. Is being fed up an excuse? By my opponent's standards it should be. He asserts that Christians do not think they will do any good by logic. Many atheists feel the same, after having spent so long in a futile effort to convince Christians using logic. As an aside, some (though this is hardly the majority of atheist preachers) atheists that the human brain isn't a logical one and that less logic-based methods are necessary. Finally, my opponent brings up the issue that theists think belief is voluntary. Many atheists, however, disagree, and if they don't, when presented with the question of "Could you simply start believing in fairy tales again?" they admit they couldn't. (ref: http://goo.gl...) Theists think theism is a choice, atheists think atheism isn't a choice. What does this mean? It tells us that, if anything, theists have less of an excuse based on this reason than atheists for preaching. Atheists see it as a matter of seeing the evidence (or lack thereof) with an open mind, which places importance on the environment of the person to be "converted". In contrast, most Christians think that all that matters is a person's willingness to accept Jesus, yet preach anyway. Indeed, Christians continue to preach, sometimes literally, to the choir. There is no excuse of saving souls here, and quite frankly the preaching never ends. Can my opponent really continue to claim that saving souls is why Christians preach? Atheists, however, do not continue preaching to atheists. Clearly atheists are more excused when they preach. CONCLUSION Overall, atheists have many excuses for preaching, and do it less often and more nobly than most groups. The idea that atheists have no excuse for their preaching is rejected. I look forward to my opponent's response.