[Irkle Berserkle]

Originally Posted by normstad

What is this atheist lifestyle you speak about?

Caring about other people more than an imaginary friend? Caring about the well being of the planet we live on that it can sustain future generations? Trying to live the best live we can for ourselves and others?

Which "atheist lifestyle" do you mean?

Originally Posted by badlander

Maybe you could advise us atheists on what the atheist life style is? Not going for prayer on Friday, Saturday and Sunday every week? Eating pork? Watching hockey? Bowling? Feeding birds?

Perhaps learning what atheism is or is not .

Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew

You're right. Atheism is not a worldview, but it can strongly impact what worldview a person holds.

Nothing derogatory was intended by me. A belief system predicated on human existence being nothing but the product of blind evolution, having no deeper meaning than that which we each give it, being unaccountable to any higher being, having no higher morality than the consensus of a majority of society at any given point in time, and ending with physical death inevitably generates a very different view of oneself, one's world and one's fellow humans than does a theistic and specifically Christian belief system.

Originally Posted by HeelaMonster

You missed the point again (which I am starting to suspect may be deliberate). I agree that the asking of questions is perfectly reasonable, in all directions. It is the failure to apply the same logic to yourself that you apply to others that is unreasonable.

You are confusing "missing the point" with "disagreeing with you."

I apply the exact same logic to myself. The difference is that I believe my convictions are far more likely to be true than yours. You are welcome to believe the opposite.

I, too, am in favor of evidence-based convictions. You are convinced that atheists are taking the larger gamble, but on the basis of what evidence? "Virtually every religion teaches there are consequences"... so what? Virtually every religion incorporates manmade constructs that provide a carrot (e.g., eternal reward, blessings, etc) and a stick (eternal damnation, suffering, etc). It's not difficult to imagine why the men who made these religions would have used THEIR imaginations to do that. But there remains no evidence for ANY of those carrots or sticks, other than the "earthly" rewards or punishments that are available to us all, regardless of religion.

I hold my convictions on the basis of the vast body of evidence and experience that has led to those convictions. You aren't making any larger point than "disagreeing with me" about those convictions.

Let's go back to the scenario that prompted this brief exchange, because I haven't seen you or anyone else address it...

Is that a far-fetched scenario? Perhaps, but NO MORE far-fetched than anything else the minds of men have imagined for what awaits us, and how we get there and/or avoid it. It would pale in comparison (on the far-fetchedness scale), were we to map out the steps required by 30,000 Christian denominations in order to avoid eternal damnation... but that's not worth the time, because there is no evidence for any of it. Conversely, there is just as much evidence that 2x3x29x41's scenario is exactly the way things will play out.

Far-fetched or not, that is the same scenario that you are presenting to atheists, in reverse. And presumably to believers in other religions... or does faith in ANY deity count, so long as there is something (and if so, who negotiated that reciprocity)?? Both you and Mink57 have suggested there is no penalty in your minds for getting it wrong, which makes it easy to be convinced you have it right. But that is not applying the same logic to yourselves that you apply to others, when you declare who is taking the larger gamble.

When you use terms such as "imagined" and "no evidence," you are simply disagreeing with us. I, along with the world-class philosophers, scientists and scholars of the past and present who have been theists and specifically Christians, would reject your characterization. A vast body of philosophical and scientific scholarship, together with a vast body of anecdotal evidence and human experience, supports a theistic position.

This isn't to say that a non-theistic or non-Christian position is silly or completely unsupported by similar scholarship and evidence. That's obviously not true, What is simply wrong is your suggestion that we really can know nothing about ultimate reality and that all belief systems are essentially fungible.

In your admittedly far-fetched scenario, certainly I as a Christian would have made a grievous error. There is not a vast body of philosophical and scientific scholarship, together with a vast body of anecdotal evidence and human experience, suggesting your far-fetched scenario has even a glimmer of truth to it. It's simply a thought experiment, like Descartes' Evil Genius.

I hold one set of convictions, atheists hold another - simple as that. If Christianity is true, atheists will have made a grievous error. If atheism is true, Christians will have made an equally large error - but, like Pascal, I can't see that we will have lost anything in this life by living according to our convictions that Christianity is true.