You are absolutely correct that the question of life after death becomes moot and invalid if there isn't a place after death. I can't argue with that one! Jesus' resurrection, however, proves that there is a place after death and that there is life after death. This life isn't all there is.

But that doesn't mean that this life counts for nothing and has no meaning. It's not all about life after death; it's about life here, too. The meaning of life is to live as we were created to live, in conformity to the person of God, to serve as mediators of his life to all we come in contact with, to help the poor, feed the hungry, lead people to understanding about the truth, investigate my world to understand it as much as possible, work for justice, and to live at peace with all people, as far as it depends on us. We're not here just waiting to die to go to heaven. Eternal life has already begun; I get to enjoy the first deposits of it even now, and I can share that life in hundreds of ways with the people around me, enriching their lives, contributing to knowledge, sharing God's blessing, and hopefully showing others how they, too, can be part of this fantastic life grounded in relationship with God. There's nothing "dark ages" about that!

Your argument becomes invalid when you come to consider: What if there isn't a place after death? And what's the meaning of life if it's just a transition then to another place? Wouldn't that make life meaningless here if we are just waiting to die to go to heaven?

This was the mentality in the dark ages and led to no one really caring about this world, thus less scientific achievement.

God is not in the business of making you happy. God is in the business of making you holy and giving you life. Interestingly, when people give their lives to Jesus, they find a joy that "happiness" can't touch.

> If I die young, isn't that a terrible unjustified loss of potential and productivity?

In the Bible, death is not an end, but a transition. There is no loss if one belongs to God, but only gain. We move to a richer life, completely with its greater potential and increased productivity, since the restraints of the sin nature are completely removed.

> What if I was very intelligent and died? Wouldn't that be a waste?

Not at all. We use our intelligence for as many days as we have on this earth. There are plenty of intelligent people to move the world along without you or me being in it.

> Religion is known for not accepting change

I think this is also true of politicians, business people, educators, philosophers, and...you get the idea. Humans have a stubbornness to resist change. The doctor who first advocated washing hands for health (Semmelweis) was ridiculed to no end. The economist who has the courage to propose trickle down economics is scorned. Crick & Watson (DNA) were instructed to drop their research. William Harvey (proposed that blood circulated) was ostracized. Edison's light bulb was mocked. Nikola Tesla, about his theory of alternating current, was told, "Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." This list goes on and on. George Bernard Shaw summed it up well in two sayings: "All great truths begin as blasphemies;" "Science progresses funeral by funeral."

Arthur Schopenhauer said an important idea or truth must endure a hostile reception before it is accepted. "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

It's not accurate to say religion is the only, or even the major, perpetrator of the status quo.

Why does God's plan interfere with my happiness? You often say if things don't go your way, God has different plans for you, but why must it interfere with my personal dreams and happiness? If I die young, isn't that a terrible unjustified loss of potential and productivity? What if I was very intelligent and died? Wouldn't that be a waste? Is that what God wants?

Religion is known for not accepting change. Progress is struck down by religion often and conservatives, but throughout history, the only way we've been able to make it to this point in time through advances in science such as medicine and technology. Without progress, we wouldn't be living so comfortably. So why does religion still refuse change?

In some cases, like the Communist revolutions of Russia and China, major change can be bad, but that was because it was too radical and does not work. Slow and steady change is what is needed because it ensures people slowly become comfortable with new ideas. It also can't be too radical, but start moderate, or people will never accept.