Atheists do not have an excuse for preaching atheism

It's clear from context that an "excuse" in this debate is not merely anything offered as a reason. Consider, "Why did you shoot the sheriff?" "I felt like it." The response "I felt like it." may well be true and offered as an excuse, but it is not logically derived. From the outset, I was clear that what I meant by an "excuse" was logic applied to considered premises. The premises may be wrong, but they are adopted upon thought. Christians and atheists have different conclusions, so someone is wrong. This debate is about whether preaching is consistent with fundamental atheist beliefs. Excusable mistakes include (a) facts assumed to have been from reliable sources, but which turn out to be untrue, and (b) incorrect application of complex rules of logic. For example, what amounts to incorrect application of Bayes Theorem is a common error in logic, but the principle at root is so poorly understood its misapplication is excusable. However, some errors are not excusable. It is inexcusable to proclaim that one believes in a carefully considered and well-understood principle, and to then purposefully violate that principle. For example, it is inexcusable for a Christian to hate people. Hating the sin and not the sinner is fundamental to Christianity. The doctrine is so broadly agreed upon among those meeting the definition of Christianity, that anyone proclaiming to be a Christian either knoit or should know it. Christians believe that salvation is all-important and that believing in God is a choice. It follows from those premises that they may exhort others to make the choice. The choice to believe is a leap of faith. If Christians thought that only logical deduction could convince people, they would not be practicing religion, they would be in the realm of science. Atheists do not believe in leaps of faith. Preaching is to "to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action; specifically : to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner." That's demanding a leap of faith. If atheists did believe in leaps of faith, they would be a religion. Preaching is asking someone to accept a conclusion without offering logic or evidence to support it. The Christian excuse for preaching is that it is consistent with their fundamental premises. Atheists have no excuse for preaching, because demanding belief without proof is contrary to the atheist rejection of leaps of faith. Con accuses me of inconsistency, "With Christians, [Pro] claims that what they think as true excuses them, yet not atheists." Con made that claim early in the debate, and persists in it. I am consistent in saying that there is no excuse for arguing contrary to the central principles of ones beliefs. Believing that a leap of faith is required and believing that leaps of faith are unjustified are diametrically opposed. Because of what Christians believe, they may preach. Because of what atheists believe, they cannot preach. Note that the Christian belief in leaps of faith only applies to matters of salvation; they do not have a general license to preach on things unrelated to religious doctrine. Con explains her position by analogy, "Imagine an eight-year old who feels threatened by another child, so hits him. He may have been wrong about being threatened, but should be excused. Punished, maybe, but to teach a lesson, not because there was no excuse." So a parent who knows her child erred in judgment excuses the child? I think the parent would say that falsely feeling threatened was not an excuse for hitting the other child. If the other child was revealed to have a grenade, then the child would be excused. The issue is not whether the child actually was threatened, it was whether the child used a logical process in assessing the threat. If the other child had a realistic fake grenade, the child would still be excused. Keep in mind that preaching is advocating a conclusion without supporting facts or logic. The resolution is that "preaching atheism" has no excuse. Con is arguing that fear of Christianity is an excuse for preaching atheism. Fear of Christianity is a good reason for giving facts and a line of reasoning opposing Christianity. One could even make a weak case that fear of Christianity is an excuse for preaching against Christianity. That would be saying, "Christianity is bad," without saying why it is bad. However, Con is going beyond claiming that preaching anti-Christianity is excusable; she claims that demanding a leap of faith to atheism is excused by fear of Christianity. Preaching implies a sermon. Even if done extemporaneously, it demands intellectualizing. Anyone capable of intellectualizing ought to at that point cite reasons in support of their opinions about atheism or Christianity. A person who is incapable of intellectualizing has no excuse for preaching anything. My case is in two parts: Atheists who have an intellectual understanding of atheism have no excuse for preaching atheism because they know atheism does not condone leaps of faith. Con suggests there are atheists who adopt atheism as a quasi-religion because they feel threatened, doing so on faith. If so they have no excuse for preaching atheism because they do not understand the subject. Preaching requires intellectual preparation, and they are not prepared. Con presents evidence intended to prove that atheists fear and hate Christianity. I don't think that evidence is relevant to the debate. If fear provokes irrational behavior, that explains irrational behavior, but does not excuse it. Try out, "Racism is excused because one race genuinely fears the other." I don't think so. he overriding principle is that people ought to be jusdged on their individual merits, and anyone opining on the subject must know that. It is irrelevant even if the fear is justified. Fear of Christianity is a good reason for opposing it, but not opposing it based upon faith in atheism. Note the facility that Con had in coming up reasons; I'm sure she could recite ten within a single breath. Fear is not an excuse for demanding a leap of faith in adopting atheism. Even though I think it irrelevant, I while rebut some of what Con claims about how atheists feel. Some readers may believe that atheism somehow necessarily implies fear of Christianity. Con says that I was inconsistent in granting that "atheists fear Christianity," then not allowing fear as an excuse. I granted that *some* atheists fear Christianity. That is as bold a concession as granting that some atheists fear peanut butter. My point was that fear of Christianity, or even animosity towards religion, does not logically follow from being an atheist. My example of Japan showed that about a hundred million people were both atheists and members of a religion. Con countered that she was talking about American atheists. The definition of atheism, however, does not have separate sections for "in the United States" and "outside the United States." If fear and hatred of religion are logical consequences of atheism, then it would be so everywhere, and it is not. Actually Japan is "worse" than America by her standards; they have state support of religion. Con tweeted an atheist list and found few who did not fear religion. That's like tweeting a list of Republican Party activists and asking what they think of Democrats. Only the most opinionated atheists join lists, and of those mainly the ones interested in affirming Con are going to respond. The list members were not all personal friends, but they are pre-selected as being like-minded. Con misused Bayes Theorem. Con's case is that feelings excuse actions, and that as a consequence of atheists fearing religion they are excused for exhorting people to atheism. But atheists cannot be excused for failure to give reasons and logic, because that violates an atheist principle of applying logic to religious belief. The resolution is affirmed.