Atheists do not have an excuse for preaching atheism

On the point of definition, "exhortation" is "the act or process of exhorting," http://www.thefreedictionary.com... -- exactly as I used the word. Con may be thinking of "extortion" rather than "exhortation." I needed a word meaning "a vigorous advocacy made without giving supporting reasons" and "exhortation" does that. Con gave my original quote, "The one thing more obnoxious than a religious person preaching is an atheist preaching. The religious people have an excuse; they think they are saving souls. Atheists have no excuse." Con then claimed that implied the excuse of "they think they are doing good." It's not equivalent. Consider the exhortation, "Don't touch that lever!" No reason is given, but the exhortation is appropriate if (a) the consequences are disastrous, and (b) an act of volition avoids the consequences. Volition is "The power or faculty of choosing; the will." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Religious people believe that nothing is more important than saving one's soul. They also believe that faith is a choice. Christians emphasize repeatedly that they believe faith is a choice. One example giving Biblical citations is http://www.google.com... However, it follows from the nature of religion that there must be a leap of faith at some point. If there were no leap of faith, religion would reduce to science. The religious excuse for preaching is that believing is necessary for salvation, something of critical importance, and that logical arguments cannot bring about the needed leap of faith. Hence the only way to bring about your critical belief is exhortation. They tediously repeat conclusions. They think they must preach because argumentation cannot engender the necessary leap of faith. Atheists do not have a parallel situation. Atheists do not believe that immortal souls are at stake, they just think that religion is mistaken, and that mistaken belief sometimes has bad consequences. Most importantly, atheists do not believe that a leap of faith is required to overcome religion. They believe that ordinary reasoning suffices. If they think faith is required, they are not atheists. There is therefore no excuse for an atheist to exhort a religious person to make a leap of faith in abandoning religion. The atheist has reasoning available to support argumentation. An atheist who preaches is implicitly advocating an odd religion in which the faith is not believing in any gods. Religious people often equivocate on the word "faith," claiming that any belief constitutes faith equivalent to religious faith. That's not so. Reasoned belief is distinct from the result of taking a leap of faith, therefore atheists have no excuse for demanding that religious people abandon religion through a leap of faith. Con devotes much space to claims that atheists feel that religion is a bad thing, and that atheists feel put upon. Con cites tweets about how atheists feel their tribe is attacked. I grant that those feelings exist. I think much of it is unjustified; religion is a consequence of human tribal instincts coupled with a human need to provide simple answers to complex problems. Get rid of religion and some political ideology or radical environmentalism or something else will take its place in fulfilling those needs. George Bush is appointed to take the place of the departed Satan as the source of all evil, or something like that. However, the origin of religion is a subject for another debate. The question is whether atheists have an excuse for preaching, which is vigorously advocating without reasoning. Unlike religious people, atheists have no excuse for demanding faith. Atheist feelings about religion are cause for them to argue against it, but not to preach. There is a small matter of debate logic. Con claimed that if I previously allowed X as a good excuse for preaching then I must allow X as a good excuse in this debate. That's not so. I might previously have been right for the wrong reason. I greed to debate the subject resolution, not to defend my previous line of argument. I might have been previously preoccupied with some other task -- I might have previously erred because I was preoccupied with putting a bit of lard on the cat's boil, so I didn't adequately explain my thinking. Maybe I was just wrong back then. The current debate stands on its own. As it turned out, Con misunderstood my previous reasoning so I had no cause to abandon it, but I could have. "That's what you said." is not a valid argument. The resolution is affirmed.