You know the adage about appearances being deceiving. It applies here. While Alabama may appear to look good as a result of the election of Doug Jones, it is an appearance that is deceiving. Jones won by nearly the narrowest of margins, meaning that a very large number of Alabamians voted for Moore, despite everything that was wrong with him. Moore received some 80% of the white male vote cast. Yes, a small fraction of Republicans voted for Jones. But it took pedophilia accusations to bring them to do this. Had these actions of Moore not come to light, those same Republicans would have cast their ballot for Moore, despite all the other actions, behaviors, comments and beliefs that make Moore unfit for any public office. So I will not be singing any praises for Alabama, a state inhabited by a great many people who share Moore's religious-based bigotries and prejudices.
I agree that it is not likely to happen. But the point of my question is that if it did happen and a person indicates that they would begin to believe in God should it happen, then is it correct to claim that atheism (or theism) are not choices of some sort.
If you were presented with a persuasive argument buttressed with a sufficiently compelling body of empirically derived evidence would you then adopt the claim that God exists?
What then is your definition of what is a right? What criteria do you use for judging something to be a right? Why is being an asshole not a right? What criteria does it fail that leaves it outside the boundaries of what constitutes a right? If you believe what you have written then am I to assume that the state has and should exercise the authority to enact laws punishing all forms of assholery? Or at the very least is the state barred to from protecting those who act in an asshole fashion from acts of retaliatory violence? Is a person who uses offensive language being an asshole and therefore not subject to First Amendment protections?
Actually, Cephus, everyone has a right to be an asshole regardless of political affiliation.
It is true that Trump is our president, but I think you may be taking these "Trump is not my President" signs to literally.
When asked this question I typically say, as did you, that atheism cannot become a replacement for religion. But I immediately use the opportunity to provide the person asking the question with a suggestion of what can replace religion: the philosophical worldview knowns as secular humanism.
Then I think you may have a somewhat distorted understanding of his M.O. I happen to know PZ and have read a great deal of his writings. Not once have I ever heard PZ say anything or seen anything written by him denying the holocaust, or even give one cause to suspect he is a holocaust denier. PZ is unquestionably a controversial figure within the atheist/freethought community. But we should nonetheless be careful not to start what is almost certainly a false meme about him. We should all be careful not to engage in unfounded conjecture and speculation about others.
Not surprised by the pushback from some atheists on the muslim ban issue. There is nothing about atheism that automatically leads one away from biogtry and prejudice of any type.
Why do you think it is PZ Myers? What evidence do you have to justify such a suspicion? Are you just assuming it is PZ Myers because you have a strong dislike of him and disagree with him on other issues?
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
dogfightwithdogma 
Experiment