This has always struck me as the logical equivalent of a solipsist (who thinks all of reality is an illusion) claiming “we’re both a-universists, I only reject one more universe than you”, or even a religious person saying “we’re both a-secularists, I only reject one more secular philosophy than you”.
Part of me can’t quite accept that this is meant seriously, but the passion with which it is often pressed seems undoubtedly sincere. The only support I get for these kinds of claims is the statement that things like the universe are supported with evidence (apparently, this is why the “a-universist” doesn’t apply).
The first thing to note here is that this makes the whole “one more God” point moot. It really doesn’t add anything to the discussion, and we should just skip to the “no evidence for God” argument (and discuss why it is a demonstrably bad one).
The only real reason to proudly assert a claim that shows such blatant disregard for basic philosophical distinctions is, I think, because it sounds good so long as you don’t actually think about it too carefully. It makes for an excellent sound-byte in the dorm room or on the internet. This is the level of nearly all of the arguments against theism I hear.
But all positions have weaker, as well as stronger, points. And this leaves one to wonder, if a position does this poorly in the areas it chooses to bring up as its strengths, what must be the problems when we get to the truly weak points?