TConwell, we already talked about Pascal's Wager. Your assuming that you are believing in the correct God, and that the criteria to get into heaven is believing in God. If there is indeed a heaven, the "true" way of getting into it may very well be to not believe in God. So if an Atheist is indeed wrong, he risks no more than you do.
Even if we were to know that one religion which has heaven and hell is correct, due to them being mutually exclusive and the number of them there are, by sheer probability you should expect to wind up in hell.
Edit: Zazu Yen: "Dragon Fly[cont.]: "Agnostic Atheists claim that it is unknowable as it is outside the realm of sensation and the Universe[...]"
Hmm, so by your definition an Agnostic Atheist could be a Christian (or any other religion) of good faith without contradiction, because religious faith requires belief without proof (faith), and Agnostic Atheist assert that proof can not be had anyway. "
Believing that you can not know about God is a necessary quality of Agnostic Atheism, but I did not say that it was the only one. I said that Agnostic Atheists claim that it is unknowable as it is outside the realm of sensation and the Universe. This would be true to any Agnostic, but Agnostic Atheism is to believe that and also not believe in Gods.
Zazu Yen: "To my mind unfounded belief, faith again, involving god, gods or the supernatural is religious whether it be for or against."
Belief despite lack of evidence is faith. Faith is a necessary quality of a religion, but alone does not make a religion. Religions have rituals as well as dogma. And the Agnostic claim that gods are unknowable as they are outside of sensation and the Universe is based on Epistemology, we need to sense it to know about it, so we can not know God. Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack thereof.
Edit #2: Zazu Yen: "what I said was people that believe in NOTHING (Gnostic Atheists) have no imagination."
Gnostic Atheists believe there is no god. This does not mean they believe in nothing.
Edit #3: Zazu Yen: "that that none of them have been proven is why they're called theories not facts."
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law or a fact. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law. If there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory in Science. Laws describe things, theories explain them. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain. Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science