Okay, I think I see what Mangetout is getting at. (Forgive me, for I am enlightened not by the Holy Spirit and have only my own thinkmeat to work with. Sometimes it takes a while. )
Do (some) atheists parrot sayings (stock replies, or whatever) without having thought them through? Do they hear or read a clever response to a dumb fundie argument, think, “Hey, that’s catchy!” and repeat it without ever really thinking carefully about it, researching it, etc.
No. Absolutely not. Never.
Okay, maybe sometimes. And maybe some atheists more than others.
Not every atheist is a cosmologist. Not everyone has a good response to “Oh yeah? There’s no God, huh? Then what caused the Big Bang? Huh?” So who can blame the layman for cribbing a bit from Hawking and intoning, zenlike, “There was no before the Big Bang. The Big Bang is without cause.” even if they don’t really understand what they’re talking about?
Nontheless, I would opine that atheists are grilled about their beliefs as often, and perhaps more often, and as thoroughly, if not more thoroughly, than your average religionist. We’re in the minority, aren’t we? And if we weren’t constantly get pelted with questions, we wouldn’t have stock (dogmatic) answers to so many of them.
I think that an atheist has more freedom if finds that his “dogma” doesn’t hold water. Say he’s arguing with a Hindu, and the Hindu’s karma runs over his–
Aw, nevermind. . .
Anyway, I like to think (and perhaps I’m wrong) that the atheist will be more likely than the religionist to think, “Hey, just a minute. I’m going to have to think carefully about this, and either discard it, or revise it.” See, he’s got more options than the religionist, who must accept dogma (or be a heretic, which, I guess, is an option.) He also has (well, in most cases) less of an emotional investment in his dogmas; discarding a dogma doesn’t mean that he’s going to hell, that Jesus in fact does not love him, and that that big ol’ book on the shelf is nothing but a pack of lies.
Of course, discarding a dogma is tough, nonetheless. It’s a comfortable belief, like an old pair of tennis shoes. And it means admitting that you’re wrong. That’s never easy.
But in the end, I think that most atheist dogmas are just less “dogmatic” than religious dogmas. Religious dogmas, are, after all, unprovable myths (atheist perspective, again, of course.) They’re stories that you have to accept without proof, made-up statements about other made-up things, whereas atheist dogmas tend to be scientific facts (evolution happens) or logically-obvious conclusions (If God doesn’t exist, I probably don’t have to worry about going to Hell).
There just isn’t much to 'em, because atheism isn’t a complex belief structure. To perhaps overburden etymology: NO GOD. That’s all she wrote. Atheism doesn’t require structured dogmas which posit a Holy Trinity, transubstantiation, the karmic wheel, dietary laws, the path to Paradise, etc.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn speech just doesn’t require a great deal of deep thought: Your God is neither provable nor disprovable and thus it’s ridiculous to beleive in Him, and the IPU is a “cute” (or infuriating) way for me to express that. (Though personally, I prefer the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan’s garage. )