Answer the previous poster's question.

[°Leprechaun]

Ask a question for the next poster.

The next poster can try to answer it and then ask his or her own question.

I will start, but if the next poster doesn't have an opinion, he/she can ignore it and ask his or her own question. The op question isn't that important, because I just want to get this started, but maybe someone has a question that is more relevant to what topics are interesting to the average Atlasian.
If posts don't follow the suggestion of "answer a question, ask a question", 100%, that's ok, because any comments ("skipping" the Q&A stream) could be useful.

Question: What is your opinion of the Koran?

[°Leprechaun]

If everyone goes to heaven, is there any point in living a good life?

Yes, I would define living a good life as being an ethical person.
If you don't live a good life you are not living the kind of life that is
beneficial to you or to others. This should be a no brainer.
A religious person is not necessarily a good person and religious people
often use their religion as an excuse to do bad things.
Holy wars are never a good thing.
One definitely doesn't need religion to be a good person.
As for heaven, people who are not good are making hell for themselves.

….

Question: Is it a bad thing to believe anything without empirical evidence?
(For example, there is no empirical evidence to believe in magic or miracles if you define them as something that contradicts the laws of science)

[°Leprechaun]

    Depends on what we mean by "work". If you mean become a major political force capable of shaping policy, probably not. Liberalism, broadly understood, has become axiomatic in modern western political thought, to the extent that even conservatives must be a stripe of liberal. A non-Burkean conservatism is likely condemned to being an irrelevant fringe movement.

Next poster:
     What would a world where Berkeleyan idealism became one of the predominant currents of philosophical thought look like?

I certainly think that idealism has had some influence on human culture.
One could argue that if it is in conflict with empiricism in any way that it could be a potential danger.

I have to admit I am quite unfamiliar with Berkeley,
but I have his treatise, Principles of Human Knowledge*, because
it is included in the Great Books, the original series.

I got this from my mother who died in 2019.

I have read the preface where he warns of rejecting something until it is properly understood. I am reading the introduction where he discusses abstract thought.
One question that arises is whether animals are capable of abstract thought. It would seem that they are not. If so, it is a fundamental ability  where human and animals differ.
(anyway this is certainly an incomplete answer and I hope to read the entire treatise as soon as I have enough time and can offer an opinion based on more information)

Question: Did Methuselah live 969 years and if not how does one discern what in the Bible is not to be taken literally?
(a follow up question is can life expectancy be increased far beyond what it is now, in the news, because partly due to Covid, life expectancy is going down)

*I had said "Understanding", a faux pas, the word in the title is "Knowledge" not "Understanding"

As I was reading the above mentioned book, it occurred to me that his argument answered the following question.. (and the link does mention him)…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest

His answer is that only our perception of reality is real, which is, by definition, idealism.

[°Leprechaun]

I take the view that the pre-Abrahamic portions of Genesis are practically pure myth. If the lifespans of the antediluvian patriarchs have any basis in reality, they probably originally referred to lunar months rather than solar years.

Besides 42, are there any other Answers to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything, or does the question only have one solution?

I would not say that there is only one solution, but if you consider the etymology of "Philosophy" which is "love of wisdom" you are on the right track. If a person seeks wisdom she (or he) may eventually answer the ultimate question, for her (or him) self if not for others.
Patience, of course, is essential to this task.

Q: What is your opinion of metaphysics? (or to be more precise does it interest you and even more importantly does it have any practical value?).

[°Leprechaun]

No question, no answer.

If you believe in some sort of an afterlife, do pet cats and dogs go to it to be alongside humans?

SKIP>>>

I can't answer this question, because I really have no idea.
Does anyone want to take a shot at it?
(This was a very interesting thread while it lasted, so I decided to bump)
SKIP>>>

[°Leprechaun]

I don't believe in an afterlife but when I did, I wasn't sure if it would have animals. It seemed heterodox, but it's more fun that way. If God could make Heaven however He liked, maybe He'd like a vast natural habitat for all the creatures who ever lived.

Q: Do people have free will? Is it consistent with an atheistic material universe or a universe designed by an omnipotent God?

People have more power than they realize. That doesn't mean that determinism is false.
 It is hard for me to believe in free will, because it is too abstract.
Do you think people can have a psychic sixth sense? If so can they use dreams to predict the future?

[°Leprechaun]

Q... "My question: what would your ideal afterlife system look like?"
I think it would look a lot like my ideal world in this life... no disease.. no mental illness..
...no crime... no war etc.
Although if there is an afterlife and it is anything like this life, the fear of death would be gone, nobody would die... I think that is what we should strive for in this life, however.
(to prolong life in a healthy body as long as possible, although it may be doubtful that we could achieve immortality in this life)

My question:

How would you define "Biblical literalism" and what is your opinion of it?

(also you could comment on the contradictions in the Bible if it is taken too literally)

[°Leprechaun]

I have never heard an adequate defense of a literal belief in "God in Three Persons".
I also don't see why the concept wasn't meant to be figurative like a lot of concepts in the Bible are.

Q: How do you define the term "good"?
(for example, in terms of being a good person)

[°Leprechaun]

I would say yes, because it is very difficult to make sense out of nonsense.

Question: Can science prove the Virgin Birth?

If you can prove this dogma, you have evidence, perhaps that Jesus was divine and Christianity hinges on this, does it not?