I'm breaking this into spoilers so as not to dive in and steal this thread...
On atheists not believing in an afterlife
Not all atheists, as I said there's multiple schools of thought. "Atheist" is effectively not believing in a deity. If one doesn't believe in a single deity, or group of deities, one can still believe in other spiritual aspects. So any religion that doesn't believe in a god, or gods, is effectively an atheist. It's a blanket term, NOT a specific religious view.
For three cheap examples:
I am a post-theist. I don't believe in, well, anything. I won't go into why or reasons, but basically heaven? Nope. Hell? Nope. God? Nope. Other spiritual aspects not based in our own existence (meditation for the sake of meditation can be considered "spiritual" so that's why I worded that - a bit clunky I know)? Nope.
A friend of mine is a - well, I don't know the name actually, but he's more of a nature lover. He believes in an after life, and he believes in ghosts. He also believes in nature itself being a sort of cosmic power. He tried to explain it but couldn't, he's bad with words, but he defined it as "believing in life". Does not believe in a god, or a deity of any sort, and therefore he is an atheist.
Lisa Simpson is a Buddhist, and she obviously follows a more introspective Buddhism. The spirits and demons and gods of some Buddhist faiths, they aren't in hers. She's also an atheist. Reincarnation, and effectively because she's a Buddhist, Nirvana are her forms of after life.
Now, despite being all atheists we all believe in different things. We all identify ourselves, not as an atheist, but as something else. I call myself, as stated, a post-theist. Even that term has more than one group, so if someone does know those terms, I might have to further explain that I'm a non-theist post-theist. BTW, being the type of post-theist I am, it means that I don't agree with the typical western Atheist attitude, though I may agree with the views, and often do not get along in philosophical debate or conjecture. Just to show the diversity of what an "atheist" is.
When I say "western atheist" I'm referring to the antitheism movement. Antitheists are against theism, and often against religion or religious bodies (such as a church). A good chunk of people who call themselves atheists in the western world are really Antitheists. The popular view from religious people on atheists, the idea that they purposely go out of their way to insult religion, or the sort, that comes from the antitheists. Chances are if you went into a highschool and saw someone dressed in black, and they said they were an atheist, and if asked why they respond with not with an argument of logic, but an argument of insults, they're probably an antitheist.
As for your smaller text, that's not really true.
There is no "main" branch of Christianity. There technically is no "Christianity" as far as a unified religion goes. Christianity is a unified belief, all Christians believe in Jesus Christ & his teachings. But like atheism, Christianity is a blanket term.
It really splits into two groups, Trinitarians and Nontrinitarians. Though the latter is a small minority. Each of those groups then splinter into smaller groups. For instance you have the early Christians who were gnostics. They split into groups. Eventually more splitting occurred. Protestants, Catholics, and the many Orthadox Christians. Each of these groups split even further. Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelists, Mormons, I can literally name dozens of groups all calling themselves, and referring to themselves as Christians, all carrying the banner of Christians, and none - absolutely none - being the same religion that the first Christians practiced. Granted, the same schools of thoughts are in all of these, but there are massive differences in scripture belief, even sacraments and value on existence.
However certain groups don't label themselves first as Christians. Like my examples above with atheists, not all call themselves atheists, but they consider themselves atheists. Catholics, for example, have been split from many other Christian faiths for their "saint worship" as it were. They are Christians, but because of the schisms and social movements, have, as a group, been labeled and labeled themselves as Catholics first.
Also, I'm an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, and all I had to do was fill out an online form and answer to no skills are requirements at all, so I know what I'm talking about! MWA HA HA!
lulz. Minister Jacket.
As for the box, no it's not making the religion, it simply is the religion. By having someone open and look inside, you have doomed them to a life of evil. Beforehand they were ignorant of the evil. The evil could not harm them, nor could they harm it. Now that they are aware - like the concept of "original sin" - evil is real and released into their world.
The philosophical argument that I believe is being made (and the most common with this type of example) is basically that if that person would not accept Jesus, as in "never ever" would they have been better off in ignorance? If the Buddhist would have lived in his limbo world, or after life, not going to hell, were you better off condemning him to hell, knowing he will not convert? If the "Christian thing to do" is keep others safe and protected, is not the "Christian thing" to keep them ignorant and out of evil's harmful ways? What they don't know, won't hurt them, after all.
Religious Question
