I do feel very special indeed.
The issue I see with the above quoted line of reasoning is the arbitrary assignment of defacto value, as it pertains to human intellect and discovery. It was only through the constant pushing of technology and science that we learn more and more about our environment. Flying in planes, using electricity, looking at a girls ankle, industry as a whole, these are all examples of technology/sociology that at one time or another was condemned by the church and its constituents. Why ? For airplanes it was as simple as "... if god intended man to fly he'd have wings ..." yada yada yada, so on and so forth. If it were not for the utter convenience of it all(sell-ability), and the pushing of the scientific communities, religion would have us all living in huts, and barely being able to communicate outside of our own neighborhoods. Let alone, driving in cars, having disturbing abundances of food, text messaging and pretty much everything.
What you are specifically falling into is called the "Gaps". Any noticeable gap in scientific knowledge can and will be filled by superstition for the gain of that institutions agenda. Science cannot explain "whatever" so obviously it must be a spiritual mystery, and fully in "gods hands" until the gap is filled with knowledge. A good example of this is the discovery of germs. Until we discovered the minute organisms/bacterium/viruses that were responsible for many ailments and diseases, plagues and illnesses were viewed as curses from god. Sadly there are those that still subscribe to this retardation.
Actually if you will re-read what I wrote, I specifically stated that finding Christianity outside of Childhood Indoctrination is not something that is terribly unlikely. Again the idea is that you are most exposed to Christianity, therefore simple mathematical probability shows you are more likely to "find" Christianity outside of parental guidance. Choosing for oneself of course is still inherently personal, but that doesn't mean that choosing the religious choice is somehow abnormal.
I love when this is brought up because it is almost always alluded to as atypical behavior, when it is the inverse. This can be referred to as Divine Gambit, Deathbed Recantation, or the "there are no atheists in foxholes herp derp herp" theory. Also it is very much a product of the same fear that we as human beings created religion to deal with in the first place. As one's mortality becomes more defined, and as we age and realize the frailty of life, to many people religious practice simply becomes a failsafe for ones inevitable death. That fear would only become infinitely more palpable actually facing the raw, absolute mystery of death. No one wants to think that they might end up in hell, or cease to consciously exist. It is absolutely terrifying. Religion provides, to a degree, some relief from that fear. You've heard it a hundred times before.
"Well if I'm right about god post-life, you have everything to gain, and if I'm wrong, then it doesn't matter anyway, and you end up the same place ..."
However I would argue that believing in such a thing, is not true belief. If you are only using religion as a parachute, you are not really having a relationship. You are simply afraid of the Cosmic Hell-Spanking god might give you if you deviate the designed course. Of course since he is GOD after all, he should know what you would or would not do in the first place, and not only does he know what you would do, but what you WILL DO. So the whole thing seems even more pointless and cruel once you take his all-knowingness-ness[sic] into consideration, that he is plenty aware much of the world isn't Christian, but will send them to hell anyway, even though he LOVES THEM JUST AS MUCH. Just not enough to not send them to hell .
I will take your challenge although whether one agrees with the answer is as subjective as which set of tits I posted above are the most glorious (its the second set, but still). The idea of the world existing in a natural state of balance may seem improbable from an interior view, but when applied to an infinitely massive universe, and in correct perspective as to our actual place in the known universe (another idea panned as dogma by the church who strictly believed Earth was the center of the universe until proven otherwise) it becomes less of an impossible, and more of an inevitable. First we exist in just the right pocket of galaxy to facilitate life itself. Not too hot, not too cold, simplified. However if each one of the stars we see in the sky is a sun, with its own system, and those are only the visible ones, planets existing in the "sweet spot" are probable enough. That's just life-tastic placement. Once we are past that, we can move onto life itself. Which is the fight of continued existence. To live, we must kill. That sounds harsh, but only when applied to other equal moral entities. When I say kill, I really mean 'consume'. Whether that be plant, animal material, or what have you. Finding natural balances takes time(variable), and is never permanent. Obviously within the viewpoint of a single lifetime or two(which regrettably is how most of us view forward history, or backwards for that matter) things can seem deceivingly stable, but viewed over several hundreds of thousands, or millions of years nets constant changes in said balances, and one finds that just as often the balance is tipped one way or another, again seriously simplified.
Also lastly, to view evolutionist theory as purely "chaotic", is to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how it is theorized to work. I've read the bible several times over, as a christian, and as an atheist, but I've met few (I have indeed met some though) who have actually bothered to read The Origin of Species, in anything other than a tentatively narrow way. Let alone current, prevailing theories based upon. Again, I do not strictly adhere to evolutionist theory, but I can at least fathom the ideas behind it, and they cannot be reduced into simple "chaos".
My hands hurt.
