No, I'm not saying you don't hold your views strongly. What I am saying is that I disagree that it's not your responsibility to convince others of your point of view. It is your responsibility and you owe it to your peers to do your best job of making sure that your reasoning and the perspective which led to that reasoning is fully understood by them.
Consider for example how your own opinion was formed based on reasoning that was at least in part put forward by people who came before you. If they had all kept to themselves and you never had access to the ideas/thinking of past atheists to help you make an informed decision, don't you think they would have effectively been doing you a disservice?
Note that I'm not necessarily saying hardcore proselytizing is the right approach to achieve that. In fact hardcore proselytizing can in some cases turn people away from your opinions, so it could actually be worse than doing nothing.
>It is your responsibility and you owe it to your peers to do your best job of making sure that your reasoning and the perspective which led to that reasoning is fully understood by them.
I understand that perspective, but strongly disagree. While it certainly is appropriate (and often beneficial) to discuss one's perspectives and compare them with that of others. Especially, but not limited to, those who disagree with those perspectives.
This is important (as you point out) to make sure that your own ideas are rooted in fact, and are amenable to rhetorical defense by subjecting them to questioning and reasonable inquiry.
I am most certainly not responsible, to you or anyone else, in arguing for or against anything. Should I choose to do so (and I do, from time to time), I am responsible only to myself for such activities.
To put a fine point on that, while there certainly are circumstances which might argue in favor of addressing a particular issue as part of the social discourse, those circumstances do not imbue some sort of societal responsibility to do so.
Assuming you disagree, what would be your counterargument?
Consider for example how your own opinion was formed based on reasoning that was at least in part put forward by people who came before you. If they had all kept to themselves and you never had access to the ideas/thinking of past atheists to help you make an informed decision, don't you think they would have effectively been doing you a disservice?
Note that I'm not necessarily saying hardcore proselytizing is the right approach to achieve that. In fact hardcore proselytizing can in some cases turn people away from your opinions, so it could actually be worse than doing nothing.