Would an omniscient god reward my atheism?

Well, the catholic church up until fairly recently still held the concept of Limbo as the place where those who were not at fault for their lack of being baptized could go after death to live their eternal lives.

no

no. ha ha, sorry for you.

why not?

Catholic Cardinal George Pell tonight assured us all atheists definately go to heaven, as long as they are striving for truth. Woohoo! Cop THAT Pascal, you shyster!

He also said dogs have souls, the germans have suffered more than anyone and ancient jews were intellectually backward.

Father Bob would have been better.

According to Revelations, they ain't no dogs in Heavan. I've have zero interest in going there.

The Cardinal said that at some point during the evolution of man from Neanderthal (yeah), God put a soul in, but then later he said all living things have souls. So you get you dogs, and maybe some of the more pious fruits and vegetables too. Which will be handy since he also claimed that your body is physically restored.

Dawkins v Alain de Botton would be interesting.

There's a great fragment from Mark Twain in which a colt asks his sire if horses go to heaven when they die--his sire replies: "Not if you're good, son."

I am not on Cardinal´s side but that is just poor comment...on the other hand would anyone clarify to me how come someone who claims to understand Darwinism does not advocate its use ? I mean Darwinism does not have to be guns and anarchy...social Darwinism as we see in ants behaviour is a reality...what would be the functional interest in Darwinism if it did n´t really worked well...Dawkins is indeed a 2 category intellectual...is talks are to say the least always very shaky...

Well, because social Darwinism presumes that one's own genetics must be advanced at all costs, meaning Hitler was right. Dawkins and most others with a good understanding of natural Darwinism think that the human race can do better than that, using our social group survival skills and language adaptation to overcome our basic instincts. John Nash proved it's actually the best solution for the individual anyway, as he isn't wasting all his energy in pure competition.

I am not opposing Jonh Nash in fact I admire his work I just don´t see were Darwinism excludes cooperation inside your group, nor Nash' s work says nothing against it once it apply´s in closed systems, in between systems healthy competition is actually a very good thing, the very reason why nature has always a plan B which is not dominant, and the reason why diversity prevails...Hitler´s form of Darwinism as total annihilation is a dumbed down radical and linear approach to it, not a good example for someone who claims to understand it at all...to my view there's nothing wrong with Darwinism most people just don't get it....

...what is meant with "group" is regarding common goals and objectives towards an end or fulfilling a function, people often belong to several groups to accomplish different tasks...competition does not exclude the best possible outcome for all party´s, in-spite of some ending up getting premium prize while others end up getting prize B, just as long as everybody is not completely turned into an enemy or totally excluded...Hitler just did the opposite...and this is why extinctions if not by major catastrophes are a very slow process...competition is there but not at all costs...evolution and civilization depend on it...otherwise it would be more like fashion, today A tomorrow B but no improvement...Darwinism as I see it goes hand to hand with some degree of cooperation...what it asks is best input for all party's (optimal algorithm) while not excluding whiners and losers from the formula...that is, some win more then others !

In fact Tatcherism and Capitalism ought to learn that lesson instead of promptly killing the golden goose...

...now from what I have seen so far Dawkin´s head just can´t handle that much complexity...

Yes, he would reward you for this.

Yes, he would reward you for this as well.

God rewards everyone fairly.

Knowledge is independent of normative objectives.

If this God is omnibenevolent, it may clarify your arguement, however benevolent requires a definition, I am not certain if the conditions can derrive from the bible (as an example), furthermore the logical implications of omni, what are the semantics of infinite regress?

Also, your atheistic assertion, if propositional, is subject to bivalence values, personally I would argue from ignorance, such as contemporary knowledge of a God is epistemically uncertain, this value DOES appear to be truth apt/reliable, therefore I argue ignostism, which is a non cognitive variant of agnostism, and it denies normative expressions (meta ethical interpretation), which is why I requested a definition for benevolent.

The error in atheistic/theistic assertion appears to be induction, meaning the premise cannot be certain, it is not logical, the ampliative conditions (i.e. empiricism) deviate from formal/a priori systems.

The major mistake is to take Religion as the great enemy in particular and not seeing that the problem is far more abstract...its about any linear or symbolic belief system who will always oppose knowledge...if religion was abolished people would go on doing the same thing either picking football or any other theme who could rally them together in opposing intellectual dominance...someone around the forum actually has an enlightening signature on that regard from Isaac Asimov I think...

I'll leave the jargon to the philosophers but I believe that I know what you are getting at.

The bottom line is faith. Faith precedes certainty and in many ways is certainty. Trust in the benevolence of God is essential to faith. Difficult to take advice if you can't trust that the advice-giver has your best interest in mind.

As far as definitions go...words are like people. You get to know them but you can never really accurately define them. Descriptions always fall short but they are useful when just getting acquainted or introduced to a concept (or person).

Why do you say that belief systems oppose knowledge?

Knowledge lato sensu (wisdom) is provisional thus always open for revision while belief systems are not...while one seeks to protect itself the other is open to evolve...natural enemy's...