The way I see it, a similarity between Atheism and at least some forms of Christianity is the notion that one has only one life to live.
In the case of Atheism, this one life is all there is, and therefore one should feel entitled to do anything in order to both “improve” and extend one’s life, and Science and drugs can be that vehicle used to accomplish that wholesome and perky vampire look. Furthermore, if “natural selection” is all there is, one will be “good” because that’s the “rational” way to ensure the success of one’s offspring, except when it isn’t, but that’s OK because Science and Government will eventually come along and assure all outcomes.
For a one-life-to-live Christian however, so long as one blah blah blah Christ then when one dies, one goes to Heaven. Follow the rules, all will be forgiven, and it’s eternity in Heaven for you, you blessed one. Mess up and it’s eternity in Hell for you, sucker, or at least what will seem like an eternity in Purgatory.
In both the case of the Atheist and the Christian is the presumption that a “life” is created out of nothing, or spontaneous generation from a “Big Bang”. Nothing in the universe has this property except for a human life and the universe itself.
In the case of the Old Testament and Talmud however, one is mandated to be obedient, at least in principle, to the economic guidelines which are all about survival on Earth of Jews, which is great if one has a “natural selection” motive to ensure that Jews survive on Earth in this plane, within this time continuum, until (insert magic prophesied thing) occurs, and then Eternal Bliss.
For Hindus on the other hand, one goes through a progression (if one is “good” or a “regression” (if one is bad), at least how this non-Hindi interprets it, with Nirvana being freedom from reincarnation. That makes more sense to me, that is, recycling of each part of the one, with “the one” meaning everything, except that I don’t believe that Nirvana or the end or beginning of time ever occurs, only that perspective changes.
The bipartisan consensus or intersection between Atheism and Christianity is that the longer one gets to live, the better one’s chance at success/ability to do right by Good/God becomes. Christians are supposed to reproduce, whereas Atheists might logically conclude, under an enlarged state which ensures outcomes, or under a war state, that more babies mean more chance of survival or at least entertainment for parent(s). Therefore longevity and baby making are both, by consensus, Good/God, along with assuring the survival of the weakest and most idiotic at the expense of the strong, thoughtful, and independent, because to do otherwise would be unkind.
Note to self: Do not watch the movie, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, before stepping out in Southwest Florida.
One planet, one plane, one life, one chance, and binary Good/Evil. I don’t buy it.
With a constant population growth trajectory, it is no wonder, in my view, that Jews or Asians or anyone really good at math are necessary to suppress the vibrant peasant class to keep them from multiplying beyond geographical resources and thereby start riots, or otherwise prematurely reach the logical maximum adherence to ideology and trends. If left to their own devices, it is only a matter of time that the twin obsessions with feelings and babies are going to burst like all ideological bubbles. What then? Will both feelings and babies cease to matter to the majority? Wouldn’t that be Evil?
On the other hand, there also needs to be forces to keep the populations of Jews and Asians in line and therefore there is Good in Evil on that end too.
The notion of merely slowing down reproduction of the tumor of humanity is one of those paradoxes because after all Cancer, Age, and Death are Evil whereas Babies, Youth, and Longevity are Good.
But the tumor Loves me! Why should I want to make such a Good thing feel bad?
Because it is a regression is why and I’m going in a different direction on a different plane, which, of course, is no assurance of success on this one.