Terpstra writes: "Atheists, on the other hand, can’t afford the luxury of making a mistake with potential eternal consequences. If God exists, then I’d hate to think about what awaits them in the next life."
Why be so worried about that, they may do just fine in the next life? God (however we imagine He/She) wont judge anyone on whether they believed in God, talked about God, joined God groups etc etc. If God judges and sends people to heaven, hell or anywhere else, it will be based on how they lived their life. Did they treat others with love, respect and forgiveness? Did they look inwards to their conscience; did they listen inwards to the faint little voice of spirit in making decisions.
God is not likely to be such an IDIOT as to judge and condemn based on whether someone showed outward trappings like membership of a religious group or professing to be religious.
I can't believe Terpstra can have such a simplistic, fearful approach to what happens when he dies.

Ironer

Good post, not absurd at all. One would like to think that god does possess a degree of common sense.

Boaz I really don't think that you were patronising enough - how do you think jesus would've responded?

;-)

Ironer, I would like to think that if there is an afterlife that is run on a saner basis than that proposed by the christian church. They have built a large proportion of their marketting pitch around "join or burn" as have the offshoots.

Personally I don't expect any afterlife, not keen to have my existance come to an end but on the other hand not real keen on an eternity of kneeling around telling an insecure god how great he is/yes really.

I don't hold a hope of any external power judging me based on how I've lived my life, it does not hurt to live as though that is how our fate will be decided though.

Xena... u actually noticed my patronizing ? :) As for 'how would Jesus have responded, when you profess him as Lord and Savior, then u can pick on me :) Actually, ur welcome to pick on me anytime, I constantly need reminders of my humanity and weakness, and most of all, of how much I really need HIM in my heart to overcome the 'natural' me. So, a hearty 'amen' to your friendly rebuke. But at the same time, we ALL (including you) need a poke from time to time about how we are coming across and Christians are not holding an exclusive mortgage on sounding arrogant. We still have to live with each other in society.

Ironer, its not 'join' or burn, its 'Turn or burn' .. but either way, they miss the mark about what it means to be Christian, as does your post. It not about 'joining God groups' etc, its about knowing Christ. From that, one will desire fellowship and support. The gospel as proclaimed by Jesus was 2 things "Turn" (repent) and "believe" (in Him, the gospel) and those who respond thus will receive forgiveness from God. To present this as 'turn or burn' is a sad miscontrual of the reality. Jesus was the culmination of a few thousand years of God reaching down/out to humanity to restore a broken relationship. . As Jesus said

John 12
47"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Grey, and anyone else arguing in favour of the potential 'truths' of religion, check out this latest article from satirical paper 'The Onion': http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4119
According to your reasoning, there can be no problem with this 'new' form of religion.

Xena - You specifically told Ben-Peter what he SHOULD do. You obviously decided on what you thought he should do based upon your conscience. So you told him what to do (leave people to follow their consciences) based on your conscience. Essentially you are not following your own advice.
Hence you are being hypocritical. QED

Greg_m "The fact that our minds are capable of determining truth is best demonstrated by the discipline of mathematics, where absolute logical truth exists. 1 + 1 = 2. Truth"
Wrong. Simple definitions do not indicate that your mind is able to accurately determine reality. You are making a category mistake.

Note that you also failed to address the idea that empricism and human reason is the only source of knowledge.
On theories of truth you say
"For instance, to not believe that the natural world exists would be completely useless."
Of course. However the question of how to determine truth is a different question to whether our minds are able to determine truth. That you have to simply make an irrational leap of faith to accept that your brain is able to determine truth is evidence that your basic beliefs do not properly explain reality.