Problem dealing with death as an atheist

[diffidus]

The problem with the "We don't know what we don't know" claim is that it is really irrelevant. We do not know much for certain, and is doubtful that we will ever know much with an absolute certainty. However we can deduce probability based upon current knowledge. We have not found evidence for the existence of leprechauns, we cannot say that leprechauns do not exist, but it is a safe assumption based on what we know. Every case of magical beings or otherwise supernatural phenomenon has been debunked, so anything that falls within that category doesn't exist until it is thoroughly demonstrated otherwise.

I don't think your claim that ("We don't know what we don't know" claim is that it is really irrelevant.) can be true. Consider only a couple hundred years ago the respected scientific view was that blooding an a person with fever or perhaps using leeches was considered orthodox. On your account, if I were alive in those times I should not question such practice since it was based upon leading scientific advances of the day.

If I were alive when the flat earth theory was paramount you would argue that I should accept the theory on the basis that it was, at the time, self evident. Image how silly a person would look, claiming that the earth was spherical, to an ancient society who knew the earth was flat.

No - Ithink careful consideration as to the current state of knowledge is incredibly important if one is to say anything about truth.

---

Now about the pascal's wager argument I read on earlier in the thread (a gambling man's choice) - it is argued that when you die and there is a god after all, you're better off believing. As such, it would make sense to believe, because it gives you better odds. Aside from the fact that there are many religions, which all excluse each other, there is another point I'd like to make.

This gamble somewhat assumes that believing does not come at a cost, it's a sort of insurance for free. That is not true. To become a 'good' believer (and what constitutes as good is already impossible to find out) you need to invest a lot of time and energy. I think about 5-10% of your waking time is not even a bad estimate for how much time ritual activities take. If the religion is not true, and there is nothing after all, that time is wasted. You had only one life, a limited amount of time, and you wasted it for nothing.
I find that price to be steep!

As for 'scientific proof' in archeology; many religions claim to have proof for their history. Not just Christians and Jews. And such proof is often shaky at best. Even if we leave out dead religions (and some of them aren't as dead as you think, old norse and celtic gods still have followers these days) there are still dozens of religions to choose from, and thousands of denominations. Let's be honest here, most people are 'religion x' because they were raised either as a member, or in an environment where many people were a member.

As for the soul: The problem is that many concepts of the soul consider the soul to be something unchangable, but at the same time personality is a basic part of the soul. It is already proven that damage in certain parts of the brain can change someone completely. Nice and easygoing persons can become vile toxic monsters, or the other way around. And not just brain damage changes how we act and what we are: hormones and certain types of drugs can change persons significantly. Personality is something that is embedded in the brain.

Not really (remember the context of this argument i.e. you not happy with Epicurus)- The number of religions does not change the concept of the wager. It is still rational to take a punt on the premise that 'if your not in it you cannot win it' argument. However, you are right to question the amount of time that each religion may take up. The Church of England seems to require no time while to become a Monk requires huge sacrifice. Again, a rational choice could be made if you are so inclined.