Pseudo-Atheism, this one is for you...

[Bibliofagus]

You would love the forums at Atheism Plus. Try it out.

I have no interest in censorship, hence no interest in atheism+.

---

I'm not offended. Not to worry. I do think you are a bit off the mark though.

Consider this: I was raised atheist. I genuinely don't have a clue what people are even talking about when they mention god. As I said, I can be pretty dense as well.
Now some theist crosses my path and claims I'm immoral, because I don't believe in his god. This happens a lot more often than me going out telling them they are assholes.
So... I want to respond. I'm not able to phrase a perfect argument. I'm not allowed to 'invoke' hitchens.

What do I do?

The thing is, you appear to want all atheists to be perfect advocates of atheism. I'm not. And I'm human to boot. I do get annoyed when people, who often don't know me at all, tell me I'm an asshole for not believing their god, or for letting my wife out of the house without a scarf or whatever. And I respond. I respond for my own satisfaction. I don't expect a deconversion. I don't expect anyone to change his mind. And I sure as hell don't care if some other atheist feels I'm misrepresenting him. I'm not representing you. I'm representing me.

Another thing is that I never met a theist that truly was convinced to believe because of lets say Kalam's cosmological argument. Or the argument from design. Belief is often not rational at all. You may want to ask yourself what reasons for engaging a theist might exist. Is a perfect argument really a good way to convince someone theism is bullshit? Could it be even stupid atheists feel the need to tell off some theist, just because he lives in a society saturated with it, or is confronted with a claim as in my example?

Or is it all about something else?

Good points, good points.

I'm curious about your response to them.

I am certainly not demanding perfection. I mention in the original post that I have often been illogical when speaking to a believer and maybe sometimes belligerent. This is particularly normal in those surfacing out of religion. As one individual had said (if you want the source, I would be more than happy to retrieve it, I just can't recall it off the top of my head): "Most people go through a asshole stage when leaving church, and some stay there."

I'd tell whomever said it that it's a loaded statement. What's an 'asshole stage'? Who decides? Does it matter at all what the person whom is going through this 'asshole stage' has gone through?

Why not ask them instead of making a fucking essay telling them to man up?

I'm just mostly concerned with those who willingly stay in the asshole stage.

At this point, I wouldn't believe you are.

Eventually, if we are particularly fervent in atheism, then we should find a way to bring out brilliance rather than aggression.

Hell no. Not everyone can be brilliant. That's what I was saying remember? We should just learn to put trust in people who earn it - in their field of expertise. Sure: These people will fuck up sometimes. As your judgement of these people will fuck up sometimes. Deal with it. You can never make an informed decision on everything, and I feel I have better things to do than learning all about the big bang or fucking quantum, just so I represent atheism better. I'd rather go with some of the stuff I read here, or what Hitchens or whomever brought up that caught my fancy.

Again, I don't mean to say all atheists are like this, very few are.
But unfortunately the few make the most noise sometimes. Also, I am not condemning human tendency either.
It's okay to let a foul word slip every once and a while. It's okay to make mistakes. It's okay to avoid reason and become belligerent every once and a while. But it's not okay to absorb this as a perpetual characteristic. That's all really.

I don't know who you are talking about.

But thank you for your input, I really appreciate it. This post is my first draft of a very general idea. I will be pulling into consideration your points as well as the points of others as I make way to a solid piece of work.

I hope you will.

[ignoramus]

Agree with MrWizard.
Atheism is the default.
No further qualification or analysis needed.
The actual concept of a skydaddy is so inherently absurd, I, as most here have trouble differentiating it from other ridiculous ideas like, unicorns, werewolves, etc

The default position is:
"We don't care about your imaginary friends, we've all got our own problems."