Atheists do not have an excuse for preaching atheism

Misunderstandings seem to have occurred, as well as inconsistency in Pro's argument. Later in my post Pro ignores evidence I've presented and forgets he has already conceded points. The definition of an excuse is, according to Dictionary.Reference.com, "an explanation offered as a reason for being excused; a plea offered in extenuation of a fault". However I think Google says it better: "A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense." Pro is inconsistent. With Christians, he claims that what they think as true excuses them, yet not atheists. Third, I will respond to Pro's arguments, many of which are straw men. My position is not that "because atheists feelings towards religion are valid, their actions are excused". Their feelings and opinions are real, and these particular feelings and opinions justify preaching even if preaching atheism is still a fault. Pro has glossed over that atheists think they are helping people in general by doing away with belief--it is not just a reaction to feeling threatened. Pro argues that preaching is a fault for atheists, while ignoring that the point of an excuse is to defend an offense. All we must argue is whether such a fault has a valid defense. "Con argued that since Christianity is wrong, there is no excuse for advocating it in any way, preaching it or not." This is a blatant strawman--nowhere have I said this or anything close to it. In fact, it mirrors what Pro is saying about atheist preaching. "The error is in C4, that emotional response is a valid reason to abandon a principle of using facts and logic." Pro strawmans my argument. 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. This is my argument. That preaching atheism may be a bad idea, may be a fault, but the reality that atheist "preachers" are convinced of has given them reason to do the fault. My argument is not that emotion overrides logic. Feelings of being threatened or that religion must be done away with are described as "feelings", but they are opinions with reason behind them, even if conclusion is false. Let me state this strongly and with emphasis: if these opinions were indeed true, the only fault of atheists preachers would be poor tactics. And truly, that is what Pro's problem with atheist preaching comes down to. That it is a poor tactic. "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." (The Twitter poll was conducted not among my friends but in the entire #atheism channel) Pro not only ignores the rest of the evidence I presented but also forgets that he agreed earlier 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." Indeed, Pro himself said the issue was not that atheists felt these things. "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." Two problems. On one hand, he is writing off ALL atheists who preach as not atheists. If that is the case, no atheist has preached while being an atheist, which I am happy to agree with as that means atheists do not need an excuse for preaching: they do not do it. On the other hand, Pro is redefining atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods, and that lack of belief does not need logic. It can come from lack of knowledge of the concept, or poor logic which arrives at a fault conclusion, etc. "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." Except the only fundamental principle of atheism is lack of belief in a god. "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." This is completely false. Pro confuses atheism with atheists themselves. "I disproved that with the example of Japan." The religious climate of Japan is hardly the same as the religious climate of the U.S. My focus, as stated, is on America, and while Pro is free to focus elsewhere, he has done little to show that the religious climate of Japan is the same as in the U.S. and that any significant number of atheists in Japan preach atheism at all. Indeed he has claimed the religious and nonreligious live peacefully side by side there, which implies preaching does not happen in either direction. If atheists don't preach in a nation with a different religious setting than America, that only lends more power to the idea that in America atheists have something they feel threatened by or feel is doing wrong. "Con provided no unbiased polling data to prove that was true even in the United States." I didn't need to. Pro conceded the point, and besides, I showed many examples. "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." This wholly misinterprets my position, again. Nowhere have I said that atheism equals religious hatred, and Pro has provided no reasoning that hating religion is a religion itself. As I have never said atheism or religion-hating is a religion, neither have I ever claimed "atheism is fully justified in using all the irrational leaps of faith accorded to any other religion". Now let's get down to Pro's counter-argument. "Atheists believe that facts and logic are all-import and must be advanced. Preaching is demanding that belief be arrived at without logic, but by choice. Therefore, atheists have no excuse for preaching because preaching contradicts their premise." While atheists often place a higher value on facts and logic than theists, there is nothing inherent in lack of belief of a god which requires a person also believe facts and logic be of utmost importance. Pro has also redefined preaching. Preaching, I remind you, is: "is advocating a position by...demanding agreement without giving reasons" in Pro's own words and as agreed on by both of us. In Pro's definition, preachers demand that others not think or use logic. In the definition we both agreed on, the preacher simply doesn't give reasons, but there is no inherent urging that anyone abandon reason. It's "don't think about it, just do it" vs. "think about it and do it!" the latter of which is the type used by atheists. The latter isn't effective but isn't hypocritical. ro has not shown how contradicting one's positions (that are not actually a part of atheism) is anything worse than hypocrisy. What we are dealing with is nothing worse than an anti-censorship advocate snapping at someone to "just shut up already". Wrong but easily excused. Pro spent the last round backpedaling on his earlier agreement with my premises and definitions, strawmanning my arguments, and ignoring evidence I've offered. Resolution affirmed.