Atheists are having it too easy.

[Cato]

I think writers, such as Dawkins, who have made such a good living out their atheism, might disagree.

I'm sure there are different definitions. I'm interested in those of the posters here.

The ancient Greeks had four different words for love; agápe, éros, philía, and storgē. Which concept do you want unpacked?

[Half Nelson]

Because of the doctrine of oikeiósis, the appropriation of the way of living of a rational animal.

I looked it up, as well as other Stoic beliefs. I respect your beliefs. I don't agree with them but I won't call them 'idiotic' as you have implicitly labeled belief in an afterlife...wouldn't dream of it.

[Cato]

I looked it up, as well as other Stoic beliefs. I respect your beliefs. I don't agree with them but I won't call them 'idiotic' as you have implicitly labeled belief in an afterlife...wouldn't dream of it.

You should know that Stoicism had an influence on Christianity.

(There is no evidence for the afterlife. To believe in something without any evidence for it is idiotic. Therefore to believe in the afterlife is idiotic. No disrespect meant, just stating a fact.)

[Half Nelson]

Is it just good catholics who will enjoy this afterlife? What happens to the jews, protestants, muslims, hindus, sikhs, buddhists, atheists, agnostics, mormans, humanists, rastafarians etc etc etc

As a Catholic, my belief is that the only criteria for eternal life is adherence to one's conscience, as long as it is accompanied by the duty to inform it.
Rejection of God may be done in good conscience, but may also be done out of willful ignorance.

[Toland]

Sensitivity to people's feelings should not stifle the honest statement of a view.

To believe in anything without having evidence for it is indeed an elementary violation of rational thinking about the world.

Colm Keane thinks near death experiences are evidence of some sort of afterlife. I don't. Do you?

[Cato]

As a Catholic, my belief is that the only criteria for eternal life is adherence to one's conscience, as long as it is accompanied by the duty to inform it.
Rejection of God may be done in good conscience, but may also be done out of willful ignorance.

So much for "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus". Not too well up on your Catholicism then...

[ibis]

I think writers, such as Dawkins, who have made such a good living out their atheism, might disagree.

And that would be entirely irrelevant.

I'm sure there are different definitions. I'm interested in those of the posters here.

Then you're asking for atheists' definitions - both plural.

['orebel]

As a Catholic, my belief is that the only criteria for eternal life is adherence to one's conscience, as long as it is accompanied by the duty to inform it.
Rejection of God may be done in good conscience, but may also be done out of willful ignorance.

I doubt your church would agree with you. Does the view that eternal life is granted to anyone adhereing to their concsience make your religion irrelevant?

[Didimus]

If 100 people get together and 97 of them say “In our society we do not want murder” then this is the society they will build.

And if 100 people get together and 97, or 51, or whatever majority say that 10 or 3 or whatever minority are unacceptable, or dirty, or vermin and should be eradicated, then that is the society they will build? And that would be fine?

I don't believe that the only workable moral framework needs to be based on theistic principles. However the plethora of posts here which seem to think that in abandoning or simply eschewing a theistic viewpoint that somehow no moral framework, whether universalistic, realistic, non-realistic or relativistic is needed is a little scary.
Neo-liberalism has been more corrosive than I thought. It's all a matter of consumer choice it seems.
Here's a bit of Chomsky to clear the head
"[FONT=verdana]In fact, one of the—maybe the most—elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow. But that principle is overwhelmingly disregarded all the time. If you want to run through examples we can easily do it. Take, say, George W. Bush, since he happens to be president. If you apply the standards that we applied to Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, he'd be hanged. Is it an even conceivable possibility? It's not even discussable. Because we don't apply to ourselves the principles we apply to others."[/FONT]

[Cael]

There are very few atheists in Ireland. Its just that Christianity has been largely dumped and the population has regressed to a fetish religion known as capitalism and commodity fetishism. This primitive fetishism is now calling for human sacrifice to one of its gods - The Economy.