Atheism is foolish

Your argument makes one HUGE assumption. That atheism is punished less in the afterlife. If Atheism is punished less we can way some kind of risk/reward, but it simply isn't true. As I stated before, non-believers are non-believers. History proves this. When the Christians conquered America, the Natives were seen as godless, despite the fact that they practiced other religions. The only thing that mattered is that they were not christians. A non-believer and a "counter-believer", you might say, are viewed equally in the eyes of religion. Atheism is deemed a religion. The only way out of being a non-believer is to be ignorant of that particular religion. Atheists are not ignorant to this if they are making the choice between the two. Athiesm is not a lack of religion, but a whole religion in itself. This makes athiests heretics just like the rest. THis means they will be equally punishable in the after-life. Also, even if we assume that athiests get punished less, the difference isn't significant enough to draw a viable distinction. Both would be eternally damned. That being established, there is a big problem with your next argument. If they are equally punished, then they only benefits would be real world ones, as atheists have no post-mordem reward, only punishment. This means, disregarding real world situations for now, the only possible outcome of being an athiest is either neutrality or horrible eternal damnation of some sort. This means that we have to take the small chance, as it is our only hope for saving ourselves from this remote, yet terrible possibility. Regardless of the fact that there are multiple religions, one could theoretically be correct, therefore, we must practice one in order to have SOME hope of salvation. Atheism is a denial of this hope, as only bad things can come of it, no matter what. So, we have the real world argument. The fact that religious wars have been fought is true, but as Atheism is a religion, atheists run an equal risk. Atheists are just as vocal as religious people in their views and because of its relatively new arrival in the popular stream, we are just starting to see these conflicts arise. Religions are just as angry at people who denounce the validity of their religion as they are at people who practice something else. Declaring yourself an atheist doesn't make it less likely for religions to come after you. If anything it makes it more likely. Religious toleration extends more twoard other believers with different views than simple dissenters. There is no proof or rationale that being an atheist somehow makes you less of a target. So, atheism, in a pragmatic paradigm, is foolish because no possible good can come of it. This is weighed versus the even slight chance that some religion can save you from eternal torture. If a religion provides us even the slimest of chances to escape that terrible fate, we should take it versus ensuring our damnation by practicing atheism. In atheism, nothing good can happen post-mordem. As atheists are included in the non-believers, they are punished equally and hold no chance of being punished, just a little less, if there even is such a thing. Also, because they are viewed equally as non-believers, they are subject to religious conflict just as much. Atheists are not non-relgious people, but a whole religious denomination in themselves. This means they are equally subject to real world consequences, while carrying, not even the slightest hope of salvation. This is weighed against ANY religion, which carries even the slightest chance of safety from this terrible fate, along with equal real world risk. Therefore, Atheism is foolish because it carries equal real world risk, but lacks that small chance of hope, ensuring dmanation.