>>>It is hardly a revelation that people of faith very commonly dedicate themselves to amassing great wealth and power.
>
>In the interests of fairness, here is my point to which you are responding:
>
>It is hardly a revelation that patrician atheists very commonly dedicate themselves to glittering careers and other material things. I thought it was interesting that such a one might suddenly change his mind as his life draws to its close.
>
>When I read that paragraph, I do not see that the first sentence by itself contains the actual point. It would seem discourteous to pluck out that sentence in isolation so I can object. We can agree to disagree.
>
>In any case, I've already made the point you raise. As I said, if such a person were to change their mind when they got old, I would understand that. (Few religions value mammon as high as morality).
>
>>>It is also hardly a revelation that large numbers of people of faith and aetheist lead fulfilling, moral lives and want that to be as much a part of their legacy as any other accomplishment.
>
>OK. Do they change their minds when they get old as well? You know, start wishing they'd pursued wealth instead? If not, I'm not sure why you feel a need to post that to me.


Let's go back to the beginning on this
(I'm obviously paraphrasing here)

You were talking about a person suddenly changing his mind and realizing that he would rather be remembered for being a good person than for all his "worldly" accomplishments. You then added a comment that I interpreted as surprise that an aetheist would come to this realization.

In doing so you implied (at least in my opinion) that aetheists as a class are not as concerned with behaving morally as are people of faith. I take exception to that implication.

If your implication is that, as a class, they might behave morally but are more concerned with their "worldly" legacy, I think that is also true of very large numbers of believers.

Let's compare two of them.

Whatever you may think of Jimmy Carter as a president, the moral values attached to his faith and his actions based on those beliefs ensure that his enduring legacy will be as the best ex-president we've had for a very long time. While he was in office, many of his decisions were based upon his desire to "do the right thing." If asked, I'm sure he would say that he wants to be remembered for his stances based upon his faith-based morality rather than that he once was President of the United States.

Whatever you may think of George Bush as a president, every indication is that his legacy will be based upon his presidental record. Despite his faith, I just don't see the kind of moral concerns that guided Carter's actions.

My point is that belief/non-belief is not a predictor of moral behavior and is not a predictor of legacy-desire.

Finally

>>>It is also hardly a revelation that large numbers of people of faith and aetheist lead fulfilling, moral lives and want that to be as much a part of their legacy as any other accomplishment.
>
>OK. Do they change their minds when they get old as well? You know, start wishing they'd pursued wealth instead? If not, I'm not sure why you feel a need to post that to me.

This is a really curious statement and, frankly, it baffles me that you could interpret my comment that way. While many believers might wish that they had accumulated more wealth to pass on to their children and grand-children, I hardly think they would suddenly want that to become their legacy.

Again, the desire to be remembered as a good person rather than for worldly accomplishments is not a function of belief or disbelief in God. I'm not surprised to find aetheists who desire to be remembered for their achievments. I'm not surprised to find believers who desire the same thing. I'm not surprised to find aetheists who desire to be remembered for their moral stances and I'm not surprised to find believers who want the exact same thing.