Nobody, but nobody, out there represents my views perfectly. (Ultimately, I'd probably end up disappointed in myself.) That means whoever I vote for will be the lesser of the available evils. Why not, then, vote for the candidate with the views closest to my own who has an actual chance of winning?
I've wondered what would happen if somebody really did come out with hard evidence against, say, evolution. Of course, it wouldn't be wise to jump to conclusions. Maybe it wouldn't pan out in the end. But what if ten years down the road the finding were holding up and growing even stronger? I'll guarantee you that a considerable portion of my atheist comrades still wouldn't admit that evolution had been overturned -- or even convincingly challenged.
We do have our dogmas, and many of us hold to them as tightly and irrationally as religionists do to theirs.
"I tend to think far more about the eventual death of others close to me than I do about my own death." That, and the grief my death will cause for those close to me. But fear dying itself? Well, I have the same instinctual aversion to it that anyone else does, but there is no terror in the prospect of being dead.
"Please repent and be saved."
But then you won't get to see us fry like sausage.
"Atheism was not a choice I made; it was something I gradually came to realize about myself."
Yes. Me too.
Waiting for this guy's skeletons to bust out of the closet.
I would suggest that secular also implies that temporal laws trump religious precepts when in conflict.
Windows 7. Latest updates.
Again, we can quibble over the defintion of "religion," but we need some kind of operating system.
PZ Myers is still a thing?