Why do you think there are people out there trying to convert you to atheism?

[David292]

I realise the title may be a little ambiguous, so I'll clarify. There are people out there trying to convert Christians to atheism. Some have even produced great reams of work like Dear Believer in Christ. Why do you think people do that sort of thing?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I realise the title may be a little ambiguous, so I'll clarify. There are people out there trying to convert Christians to atheism. Some have even produced great reams of work like Dear Believer in Christ. Why do you think people do that sort of thing?

I'm not sure "convert to atheism" is the appropriate phrasing. Conversion usually means moving between two ideas/beliefs/belief systems (etc), the process of going from one to another. Atheism, by definition, isn't a belief system or a belief, but the lack of such.

Perhaps "de-convert" would be a better term to describe the efforts of so-called "evangelical atheists". As for why? Any number of reasons probably, because they think religion impedes personal growth and psychological/emotional health, or take it a step further that religion impedes society (this would include the usual notion that religion is naturally violent and hostile toward reason and progress). Those would be among the bigger reasons I can think of.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mandyangel]

Thats the billion dollar question. Its the part that most agitates me about atheism. I wish I could just be friends with an atheist without them pressuring me into beliving that believing in God is the wrong thing to do. Can't we just get in the pool and play marco polo?

 

[solarwave]

Because they believe their worldview is more true and that their worldview produces more good.

 

[norswede]

Because prophecy said it would happen before Christ returns. It's just a speed bump on the way to God's Kingdom. I'm not worried about it. Though I do wonder why Atheists spend so much of their time on Christian Forums making fun of and trying to destroy the faith of Christians. If they're so smart, don't they have something better to do or are they the kind of atheists that live in their parents basements and post messages between levels of World of Warcraft?

 

[joey_downunder]

I realise the title may be a little ambiguous, so I'll clarify. There are people out there trying to convert Christians to atheism. Some have even produced great reams of work like Dear Believer in Christ. Why do you think people do that sort of thing?

Misery loves company.

 

[GrayAngel]

Because, like everyone else, they want everybody to agree with their own point of view. Unlike us, however, when they succeed, they're not drawing someone in with the promise of something greater. There's no afterlife, no benefits. They'll claim that they have "integrity" on their side, which is complete nonsense. Atheists don't have a lick more integrity than Christians.

The atheist lifestyle is completely meaningless. It's you live, you die, the end. It's sad. They'd be better off becoming Buddhists. At least then they'd have something to do other than wait for the end to come.

 

[berachah]

There are two sides to the unseen spiritual battle between Go(o)d and (d)evil and the devil works through people as much as God works through people.
The only people the devil is interested in changing is Christians.......he has the rest.

 

[lesliedellow]

Atheism seems to have developed an evangelical streak in the last decade or so, but if their intention is to convert anybody, they do a singularly bad job of it. Time and again you hear the same old saws about Jesus was based upon Mithras, or the Bible was edited at Nicea, and what have you.

If there is one thing the new atheists all have in common, it seems to be the belief that science is omnicompetent to solve all life's problems. They have effectively made science into a religion.

 

[Harry3142]

In 1963, when I first encountered self-proclaimed atheists who tried to convert me to the worship of science as the answer to all our questions, I realized that atheists weren't really atheists. Instead, they were idolaters. They were worshipping something more modern than Ba'al and Molech, but they were still worshipping it as their god.

Since that time I've encountered other so-called atheists. Some have stated that God does not exist because their humanist philosophy doesn't allow for him to exist. Some have said that he doesn't exist because they don't want to admit that there is good and evil in the world, but merely a programming dictated by our genetic makeup and environment that causes everything we say and do to be totally beyond our control (I heard a professor of philosophy promote this one in his lecures in 1964). And then there are those who don't want a divine being to exist because that would put their own lifestyles in jeopardy. The reasons are endless, but the purpose is always the same. They would rather worship whatever idol they have chosen for themselves than worship God.

We are all 'hardwired' to worship. It's not a matter of 'if' but only a matter of 'what' we will worship. Those who claim that there is no God haven't stopped worshipping; they've merely exchanged the worship of God for the worship of whatever idol they have chosen to replace him.

 

[Chris72]

I can tell you from my perspective why I argue against religion.

First because, to paraphrase Voltaire, those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Religion is at the heart of the majority of conflict you see in the world, and always has been. I see planes flying into skyscrapers because people believe it is what invisible beings want them to do. I see wars launched against sovereign states such as Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, all because a president trusts his religious advisors and what he thinks a god is telling him he should do (Bush: God told me to invade Iraq - Americas, World - The Independent and Bush Gog and Magog | Andrew Brown | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk). I see mass atrocities committed over and over again all in the name of converting one group into believing in the cultural superstitions of another. And it is inevitable. When one group's irrational belief in imaginary beings conflicts with another's irrational belief in imaginary beings, conflict is inevitable. The only reason you may find "peace" in your particular religion is because you are surrounded by those with similar beliefs.

I saw such irrationality and the dangers it presents firsthand as a military officer. The level of christian fundamentalism among military leaders is scary, to say the least.

Second, I am tired of the progress of science being held up again and again and again by religious nonsense. The science of evolution and of global warming (including the contribution to this by mankind) is about as controversial among scientists as non-flat-earth theory or the-sun-isnt-a-guy-in-a-golden-chariot theory. Yet, even today you have a push to take them out of the classroom. Teaching biology without evolution is like teaching computer science but not acknowledging that electricity exists. It's asinine. Even in the republican debate last night, you had a republican front runner blowing off the scientific consensus on such issues with the comment "well even Galileo got outvoted for a spell"! Galileo was "outvoted" by the CHURCH you moron, not fellow scientists!

And yet, this is the kind of ignorance that we want to pass on to our children. And this kind of ignorance that threatens our children's future on this planet the longer we ignore global warming. The only way to combat it is to speak up and call out religious beliefs for what they are: cultural superstitions.

Because, like everyone else, they want everybody to agree with their own point of view. Unlike us, however, when they succeed, they're not drawing someone in with the promise of something greater. There's no afterlife, no benefits. They'll claim that they have "integrity" on their side, which is complete nonsense. Atheists don't have a lick more integrity than Christians.

The atheist lifestyle is completely meaningless. It's you live, you die, the end. It's sad. They'd be better off becoming Buddhists. At least then they'd have something to do other than wait for the end to come.

This is an incredibly ignorant comment. There are no "benefits" with christianity or any other religion. Just an imaginary bill of goods. And there is nothing "meaningless" about life unless you make it so. I live every day on the planet as if it were my last. I treasure every moment I have because I am not banking on some eternal afterlife that I have no reason to suspect exists. If your only "meaning" in life is in currying favor with an invisible overlord in the sky, then THAT is a meaningless life.

 

[Chris72]

Atheism seems to have developed an evangelical streak in the last decade or so, but if their intention is to convert anybody, they do a singularly bad job of it. Time and again you hear the same old saws about Jesus was based upon Mithras, or the Bible was edited at Nicea, and what have you.

If there is one thing the new atheists all have in common, it seems to be the belief that science is omnicompetent to solve all life's problems. They have effectively made science into a religion.

No atheists and/or scientists claims that science is omnicompetent to solve all of life's problems. That is ridiculous. Who do you know has made such a claim?

And do you not believe the bible was edited at Nicea? Is it your thought that the bible, as you see it today has been static and complete since 33 AD?

 

[AlexBP]

I realise the title may be a little ambiguous, so I'll clarify. There are people out there trying to convert Christians to atheism. Some have even produced great reams of work like Dear Believer in Christ. Why do you think people do that sort of thing?

If you want my opinion, that's a pretty darn good question. Atheists generally assert that Christianity is obviously wrong and can be dismissed with only trivial effort. Yet at the same time, the same people will write tens, hundreds, or thousands of pages attacking Christians and Christianity and will devote hours, days, months or years to devising lies and distoritions about us and our religion. One might almost suspect that the atheists who do such things don't really believe what they say about Christianity being obviously wrong. One might almost suspect that, deep in their hearts, they have a strong suspicion that Christianity is true, and that the only way they can avoid facing that conviction is by endlessly attacking it.

 

[GrayAngel]

This is an incredibly ignorant comment. There are no "benefits" with christianity or any other religion. Just an imaginary bill of goods. And there is nothing "meaningless" about life unless you make it so. I live every day on the planet as if it were my last. I treasure every moment I have because I am not banking on some eternal afterlife that I have no reason to suspect exists. If your only "meaning" in life is in currying favor with an invisible overlord in the sky, then THAT is a meaningless life.

This makes absolutely no sense. Eternal life, and a more abundant life on this earth, are not benefits?

Meaningless is a life lived for nothing other than living. It will end soon, and nothing you do will make any difference. You will die, like everyone, and your name will be forgotten. Yeah, the life of an atheist sure sounds great.

You think you treasure your life more than I do? What makes you think your any better off?

 

[razeontherock]

as a military officer. The level of christian fundamentalism among military leaders is scary, to say the least.

evolution and global warming


There are no "benefits" with christianity or any other religion.

In your long post, this is what you have listed as your reasons for arguing against Christianity; i.e., being a militant atheist.

1) You were in the military, which in fact does turn many away from religion. You saw something scary in military leaders - who are highly trained killing machines. Now I'm not saying there's no connection to religion there, but please look at this statement for what it is! And I'm not saying to compare them to their closest chaplains either, because we do have some issues there. I'm just saying maybe - just maybe - these aren't your best representatives of Biblical Christianity.

2) Ev and global warming. Red herring. These are NOT issues within Christianity!

3) No benefits. IOW, argument from ignorance. YOU have received no benefits, so you're going to tell me I haven't received any? d00d, medical science left me for dead 30 years ago. Explain that if you don't mind.

CONCLUSION: you're apparently out of the military now, (congratulations, hope you are whole, I'm a little hesitant to say ty for your service but if you went in with good intentions it's in order) maybe you should consider it's time to stop being militant?

You have questions, ask away. You need to vent, I'm sure CF can accommodate that. Try to keep 'em separated?

 

[razeontherock]

the bible was edited at Nicea? static and complete since 33 AD?

None of the above. You should know better. Besides, by 325 the same source materials had been in use for over 100 years, and the only real controversy was including Rev. (or not) About the only real change was those materials got more widely circulated after the Council, instead of each Church sticking to it's own few works.

 

[lesliedellow]

No atheists and/or scientists claims that science is omnicompetent to solve all of life's problems. That is ridiculous. Who do you know has made such a claim?

I have met many atheists who fit the bill. I doubt if many professional scientists would, but plenty of atheists (usually of the "new" variety).

And do you not believe the bible was edited at Nicea? Is it your thought that the bible, as you see it today has been static and complete since 33 AD?

The Council of Nicea was called primarily to sort out the arian controversy. Some other things, such as the date of Easter were also discussed, but the canon of scripture was not touched upon.

Also, we have extant manuscripts for every single book of the New Testament from about 250AD onwards, so any extensive editing would have had to be done within the first 150 years of Christianity. Admittedly not all of those manuscripts are in the original Greek, but that is irrelevant to the present argument.

There are passages, such as the Johannine comma, which are thought not to have been in the original autographs, but what atheists always fail to notice is that knowing what wasn't in the original manuscripts (thanks to textual criticism) implies that we know what WAS in the original manuscripts.

 

[Faulty]

I realise the title may be a little ambiguous, so I'll clarify. There are people out there trying to convert Christians to atheism. Some have even produced great reams of work like Dear Believer in Christ. Why do you think people do that sort of thing?

Since you posted this, I wrote a bit of a response.

**********************************************

1) According to the Bible, I am to believe that humankind is sinful, since Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge. (Genesis 1 etc.) However, Deuteronomy 24:16 commands that “each is to die for his own sin”. Since I have never eaten such a fruit, why do I deserve to be punished?

You will be held responsible for your own sin, and because you have sinned, punishment will be deserved.

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. Rev 20:12
​

2) We are told that the Bible is utterly perfect, and contains no errors that cannot be reasoned away. Why then, do you believe that a bat is a bird (Leviticus 11:13-19), that rabbits chew the cud (Leviticus 11:6), that Adam has personally named every living species (Genesis 2:19) – which must have taken him quite a while – that there is no way of measuring the wind (John 3:8) and that “everything God created is good” (1 Timothy 4:4) – even parasites, death, disease, famine and the devil himself?

a. It’s an ‘observable’ statement. It chews as one who chews cud.
b. Adam was not yet fallen and therefore much smarter than you or I. What does it matter how long it takes to name the animals. He didn’t have a conflicting appointment.
c. John 3:8 is a comparison between the nature of wind going where it wills, and the Spirit going and doing whatever He wills.
d. Everything was good, even the devil was once an angel of light, but sin brings evil and a fallen creation, and it’s our current reality.
​

3) Heaven is supposed to be a place of perfection. Naturally, it is the place you strive for and name as your “salvation”. Yet, it experienced a war (Revelation 12:7). How can there be war in a perfect place? If it happened before, who says it cannot happen again? Why would I want to go to a place in which war can occur? That's exactly what I'm trying to escape: aren't you? Furthermore, you teach that Heaven is a state of eternal life. How can you possibly claim that when you know that “The heavens will disappear with a roar” (2 Peter 3:10)?

This is a mistake of the writers own understanding as they feel Heaven has to first meet their idea of perfection, and since it don’t it’s therefore a lie, but they don’t get to define anyway they wish. Heaven is described in scripture as a place where there will be a war. Deal with it.
​

4) On that note, how does one reach salvation? We are told, variously, that “Whoever believes in him is not condemned” (John 3:18), that we must “come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9) to not be condemned, or that we must “Obey the commandments” (Matthew 19:16-19) – not all ten, by the way, Jesus goes on to list seven which he claims are enough. Which is it?

It is saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus. However, works and obedience follow for one who is truly born again.

Saved by grace: Rom 3:24, 11:6, Eph 2:5-9
Given the capacity for wilful and natural obedience: Matt 11:28-30, Jer 31:33-34
Works and obedience are signs of a true believer: John 14:15, 14:21, 15:10, 1Jo 2:3-4, Jam 2:14-26, Eph 2:10
​

5) Ecclesiastes 1:9 states that “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Please enlighten me as to which cities had an atomic bomb dropped on them before the 20th Century; what electricity prices were in the early 12th century; or how well the 1570's Toyota Yaris ran.

Ecclesiastes is a book about the futility of striving after things in this life since we all just die and are eventually forgotten anyway, and everything will go on after that as before. This is what the verse is talking about. It has a context, and when read in its context; one won’t end up writing silly things like “how well the 1570's Toyota Yaris ran”.
​

6) The Bible is supposed to be our moral guide in all things, and is supposedly suitable for all ages. What do you think would happen if you wrote a book containing the phrase “who, like you, will have to eat their own filth and drink their own urine?” (2 Kings 18:27), or perhaps a chapter like Numbers 21 in which a whole tribe of people, including the elderly and children, are graphically slaughtered? The only survivors were the women who were virgins, and even they were later raped by the “just and perfect” men of Moses. I would not allow my children to read any such pornography!

Again, this is another point where the writer feels they get to define the context, then argue against it. No one ever said the Bible is a rated ‘G’ book. It is not, but it is the truth. To write things down other than the way they happened, as to not “offend” children, would mean to write a lie. It isn’t a lie. However, if one feels that they should save some portions until the children are more age-appropriate, that’s their right as a parent, but don’t act insulted at certain parts, when it’s just an excuse to complain when you’re not reading it to them at all anyway.
​

7) If God created everything, (Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 3:9; Revelation 4:11; John 1:3), then he also created the world’s evil (Isaiah 45:7; Lamentations 3:38). Thus, he is responsible. Any being who could create situations such as rape, death, malnutrition, disease, molestation and murder is certainly not fit for worship.

Evil is in the world because of sin, but its man who rapes and molests and murders. He doesn’t stop every act of evil, because He desires all men to repent and turn from their sin. If He stopped all evil instantly, you would have been struck dead as a child the moment you told your parents “NO!” assuming your parents would have made it that long to have you in the first place of course.
​

8) For justice to exist, crimes and punishments must be balanced. A punishment must be fitting of its respective crime. No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a finite limit. Yet, you are a proponent of a book which teaches that there is an infinite punishment – Hell. It's eternal: an infinite punishment for finite crimes. Do you not feel that proper justice would consist of suffering until remorse is felt and the crime is atoned for? Where is the justice in eternal damnation?

If a criminal, convicted of murder, stood before you, the judge, at his sentencing hearing and said, “I feel the proper punishment for my crime is to write 10 times, ‘I will not kill anymore’ and actually believed that, would your response be one of agreement or one if disbelief at his lack of any real understanding of what is going on?

That’s what this is. God is a just judge. (Gen 18:25, Ps 94:2, 96:13, 98:9) He will judge the world rightly. If the just judge says that eternal punishment is right for the crime, then it is, and the problem then rests with the guilty party not understanding the actual gravity of their crimes.

If you don’t see a balance in the justice of your sins and the eternal punishment that follows, then rest assured, the lack of full understanding rests squarely on your shoulders.
​

9) According to this book, Jesus said “Anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell” (Matthew 5:22). He then went on to do so repeatedly: “You foolish people!” (Luke 11:40), “God said to him, 'You fool!'” (Luke 12:20), “like a foolish man who built his house on sand” (Matthew 7:26), “You blind fools!” (Matthew 23:17), The Parable of the Ten Virgins of which “Five of them were foolish and five were wise” (Matthew 25:1-2 etc.) and “How foolish you are” (Luke 24:25). Would this not make him destined for Hell, and at the very least, a hypocrite? If Jesus himself is a sinner by his own admission then surely he can not be the “perfect lamb of god”.

This is what happens when one doesn’t look at what they are reading. Matthew 5:22 states that if one says these things as a statement of condemnation to “his brother”, he is in danger. Concerning the “brothers” of Jesus, He says His “brothers” are those who do the will of God (Mk 3:35). You will not find Jesus doing what this man accuses Him of doing in the scriptures.
​

10) That same Jesus also told us to “love our enemies” (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27,35) and to “do good to those who hate you” (Matthew 5:44). He then went on to ignore his own advice, calling his enemies “You brood of vipers” (Matthew 12:34) and addressing others with the words “You hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs.” (Matthew 23:27) It would appear that this character is, for once, in a perfect position to call others hypocrites – being one himself, he would know.

Truth is, He did love them when He said these things. The most wicked thing He could have done would be to leave them alone, allow them to go their way into hell without warning them of their sin, and warning the others who followed them of their same sin.

Just the same, Christians are labelled as hateful and intolerant hypocrites when we warn others to turn from their sin and trust in Jesus as their only source of salvation, knowing “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” Acts 4:12. When it would be much easier not to warn them and let them go to hell, but it would also be an act of hate on our part, rather than one of love.
​

11) There are no unbiased sources in all of ancient history that clearly refer to a Jesus of Nazareth. You would think, if all of the things this character has supposedly done are true, there would be at least one. Your Lord knows non believers exist as a result of this, yet he makes no attempt to supply proof. How can the bible claim god wants all in heaven if he doesn’t make efforts to ensure that we all believe in him?

This is laziness. There are tons of well-documented sources easily found through the Internet with minimal effort.
​

12) Paul says that “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14). Yet Jesus made many promises to return during the lifetime of his followers at that time. “Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming” (Matthew 16:28). See also Matthew 23:36;24:34; Mark 9:1;13:30; Luke 9:27; 21:32; John 21:22. None of these have happened. Does this not make Jesus a false prophet, and in accordance with Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, make the Christian faith useless?

This is also laziness. In the instances where Jesus is documented saying these things, if one keeps reading ahead about a verse or two, they see the fulfilment right there in the Transfiguration. Again, verses have context.
​

13) I find the idea that a man had to die for my sins to be entirely revolting. If your God was truly omnipotent he would have simply forgiven us. What kind of deity would execute one child in order to forgive their others? I call such an individual sadistic, insane, cruel, heartless and unjust. Surely, you would not worship a child killer, so why do you expect me to? Could you find a Judge who would allow their own son to be executed in lieu of his brother's crimes?

Could you find a judge that would just ‘simply forgive’ criminals and let them go free, regardless of their crimes, without wanting to get them kicked off the bench? Of course not, but this is exactly what is being suggested.

If one had a fine or punishment that they could never pay in full, and a man stood up at the trial and told the judge that he’d be paying the fine for them, because they had the means, would such an offer be revolting to the criminal, or seen as the sole source of their salvation from an insurmountable punishment?
​

14) “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these” (John 14:12). You obviously have faith in this book, that's why you're still reading this epistle. So it's only fair that I ask of you to show just how strong your faith is. After all, you want to be my “mentor on Christ”. I'm not a believer yet, but you are, so would you mind perhaps resurrecting a dead relative, walking across the surface of the Leeds-Liverpool Canal, or converting my cold water tap to dispense wine?

These are “greater” works not as in amazing signs, but in greater because they are empowered of the Holy Spirit. Again, this verse has a context, and that is of the coming gift of the Spirit He’s discussing in the next few verses.
​

15) Obviously, you didn't do that, you probably used the “this is all metaphorical” excuse. Surely though you can try Mark 16:17-18 which says “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” You have five signs there. I will settle for just two out of those five: drink some poison and heal my back pain, and I might start believing.

Some people have done that, but all miracles are directed through God’s will, and not our will. The sick are prayed for and some are healed, as He says, but it’s not a blanket promise for every circumstance. That type of belief comes from the arrogant view that God is here for our purpose, and not the other way around.
​

16) Now you have backed out of two chances to prove yourself a true believer. I'm starting to think you don't really believe as strongly as you claim. Unlike your Jehovah, I shall be kind and offer a third chance at redemption. Consider Jesus' words, “Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.” (Luke 6:30) Your final chance to prove yourself: Please may I have £500?

Again, (not so) shockingly, there is a contextual misunderstanding going on. These verses are how to behave towards those who persecute a believer for the sake of Christ. We are to love those who hate us, and the asking for money under this verse is an admission of being an enemy of God, be definition. So, I feel the need to share with you that one whois this type of person should know that although the believer will not avenge themselves, there will be immense retribution in the end, unless this enemy has repented of their sins and been forgiven.

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Romans 12:19
​

 

[Chris72]

One might almost suspect that the atheists who do such things don't really believe what they say about Christianity being obviously wrong. One might almost suspect that, deep in their hearts, they have a strong suspicion that Christianity is true, and that the only way they can avoid facing that conviction is by endlessly attacking it.

Uh, no. What on earth would make one "suspect" such a thing aside from wishful thinking?

 

[Chris72]

This makes absolutely no sense. Eternal life, and a more abundant life on this earth, are not benefits?

If they don't exist then no, they are not benefits. No more than giving someone a fake winning lottery ticket.

Meaningless is a life lived for nothing other than living. It will end soon, and nothing you do will make any difference. You will die, like everyone, and your name will be forgotten.

Knowing that this is your only life and that your time is always limited absolutely makes life more meaningful. It makes you treasure every day and every moment with your loved ones that much more because you know they won't always be there, that all could be lost tomorrow.

Believing your life is some kind of strange temporary prelude to an eternal blissful afterlife, doesnt make your time here better. It just means that your time that you're alive is meaningless compared to what you feel awaits you afterwards. What's 70 or 80 years compared to eternity?

Yeah, the life of an atheist sure sounds great.

Reality isnt about what "sounds" better, it's about what really is. Creating an imaginary scenario in your head to make yourself feel better isnt reality.

What you are doing is similar to someone convincing themselves they have the winning ticket to tomorrow's jackpot. If you delude yourself enough, you can convince yourself it's true. Especially if you surround yourself with people who feel the same, and you convince yourself as a group that you are all going to win tomorrow.

The difference is, tomorrow comes, you dont win the lottery, you move on with your life and hopefully have learned your lesson. In your case, no one ever finds out because the belief is that this all happens after you die. And since no one comes back to tell you yes or no, the delusion persists.

You think you treasure your life more than I do? What makes you think your any better off?

I think your belief system makes you treasure life less, as I have explained above. I didnt say my life is better than yours. I have a good life, family and career, but since I know nothing of you I cant really make a comparison.