I fail to see how "living large" and "living right" are mutually exclusive ideas. We all need stuff and consume the earth's resources. That doesn't, however, mean that we have to consume or horde all of the earth's resources for ourselves.

Anyone who has worked with retarded or developmentally disabled children understands that sociability is the behavioral expression of an innate desire. Community is an extension of this, or perhaps its own innate drive. And so is preservation of the species. Sex is not just about orgasm ("living large"); it's largely about reproduction.

So, we must balance our own "selfish" needs and want, i.e. "living large" with the needs and wants of community, to include family and friends, i.e. "living right".

Hmmm, living right versus living large. You write about these as though they are absolutes. Is the martini drinking playboy/girl living larger than a writer of great novels, a CIA spy saving the world, a scientists about to discover the cure for malaria, the physist who is about to prove the existance of the Higgs boson, a doctor who just reached into a patient's chest to massage a limp heart into beating again and thus saving a life, the fireman who just brought a child out of a burning building?

It seems your definition of living large is making oneself known in a big way and doing nothing in the process. I know many people who live large and do it quietly and do it for selfish reasons even if the result is a great boon for mankind or just a quiet moment, like catching the largest fish in the lake with no one around to see it.

As for you delimma, what delimma? Atheists cry just as hard and go through just as much trauma when a loved one dies as does a true believer. We are all animals, unable to escape our mortality or instincts. We tend to live according to rules our friends and aquaintences set, not wanting to make enemies, wanting to conform and be accepted. Religion is really outside and not connected to the way we live, large or small. The only real difference is the way guilt is handled. Believers not only have natural guilt but have to worry about fatherly punishments. Atheists just have the natural guilt, the worry that we are less than we think we are, the worry our friends or family may think less of us, the internal conflict over what is right and wrong based on our own moral teachings, derived from religious teachings or not.

We have all seen the atheist and believer live large and small. It is unconnected as is our handling of death. And no atheist needs to prove anything to believers. One only has to look at the prison population to see believers are the clear majority. One only has to see the great minds and those who join voluntary organizations such as peace corps to see that atheists are just as driven to altruism as believers.

It is worth noting that believers are the ones who cannot understand atheists. Atheists understand believers just fine, just as we all understand the child who believes in Santa Claus and what drives the child's actions and staunch defense of Santa's existance. So atheists simarily smile at the believer knowing they live a fantasy and that it just might make the believer a better person, so no harm and thus no need to dispell the belief. If telling yourself that an afterlife exists and it allows you to more easily accept death, more power to you, just try to understand that there are many people who live a reality based existance where death has happened to billions before us and will happen to billions after us.

Does atheism espouse its own theology or maybe a non-theology? Can a person live an upright and happy life without God or religion? Are there no atheists in the trenches? Lots of questions abound. I think many persons in our current world are agnostics even those who publicly profess, at least culturally, to be Christians, Moslems, Hindus or Jews. Of course many people may live wonderful and happy lives -even happier- without the various theologies of God(s) or religion to hound or ground them. Most of us, however, share some environmental connection with our original ethnic and religious identities. It is difficult for any one of us to completely shake off his/her past and the influences-good or bad-which shaped us. The sub-conscious mind is always at work even if we don't realize it.

I think the Professor has it wrong. Living right is not merely the behavior of atheists who haven't fully embraced their atheism and realized that living large is the inevitable imperative of same. As noted by some, there is no limit to the moral behavior that can be engaged in by an atheist. Indeed, I rather prefer moral behavior that has it's root in the capabilities of the species as it evolves. Of course, as an atheist, I must believe that the morality born of religion is artificial, a shortcut accepted for the fringe benefits (you get to believe in immortality) but at a price. Someone who believes that the challenge of life is to become immortal while on earth is far more likely to accomplish great and good things. In a weird way, I believe that it is the faithful who are selling their souls, rather than face the real challenge of living the truth. And yes, an agnostic is one who hasn't decided what to believe. In the end, however it is difficult to live life without ever having to decide which premise is supporting your chosen behavior, at least implicitly and unconciously. It's hard to go through life as if you are entertaining the religious premise but can neither accept nor reject it, for example.

What if living right is the best way of living large? Only in fiction is it possible to engage in actions like "[d]ebauchery, excessive consumption of martinis, unforgivable speeches, inexcusable passes made at colleagues" without consequences.

Saddam Hussein had all the personal, material goods he could ever want. But he spent a sleepless night because a malfunctioning thermostat in one of his ultra-secure palaces sounded like a pistol cocking, startling him badly. He literally could never, ever afford to relax.

Most sane humans greatly enjoy and benefit from the company of others. I certainly wouldn't trade my wife and children for any number of martinis. I think this goes much further to explain why even those who don't believe in a God still behave 'virtuously' - they believe in other people, and that has certain inevitable consequences for how one can and should behave.