I think there’s more to it than that. If you and I talk, I don’t think either of us gets to be the arbiter of logic. But if we can’t agree on what logic is or how a logical argument is composed, than logic simply isn’t going to be a useful tool for us in dialogue. That doesn’t mean we can’t have a dialogue either.
When Atheists arrive at this blog, it is my custom to point out that the primary focus of our efforts is to explain Evolution to Young Earth Creationists, rather than to willy-nilly explore the logic or justification for a belief in God in general, amongst Creationists as well as Pro-Evolution Theists.
Indeed, I read all the mission statements and guidelines, and I well recall this post from Christy early in my time here: New Atheists, Science, and the Roots of Religious Intolerance - #28 by Christy. I’ve attempted to abide by those desires and instructions, and certainly welcome it being pointed out to me if I fail to do so.
Obviously, the latter choice means the Atheist is probably spending more time opposing faith in God amongst all Christians than he or she is spending explaining God-Led-Evolution to Creationists.
I don’t think I am. I almost always stay out of the latter discussions as I don’t feel I have any useful input to make there. Also, I don’t want to interfere with Biologos’ important mission, and I make a conscious effort not to. Mostly, I’ve been in discussions like the one with Richard here, but I don’t consider it to be “opposing faith in God amongst all Christians”–and I haven’t gotten the impression that it’s generally considered that way.