This Has to Stop

[beepete]

---

Still getting the hang of this. That religion has been used as a means for pedophiles, perverts and other degenerates to get access to their victims is, without doubt, a sorry fact. Fact - Many Atheists are good upright people. This, however, does nothing to prove that God does not exist, nor does it prove that Atheism has a beneficial effect on society (but it does not exclude the possibility either). Some terrible crimes have been committed by Atheists and obviously, it would be false to conclude that Atheism has a negative effect on society. The same applies to Theism.
I agree with your conclusion about the Vatican, and it applies equally to the Benny Hinns, Crouch's and other money grabbing cretins out in the religious sphere. I may well be wrong, but I think Ken Ham is a genuine believer in Christ and would do nothing to harm a child or use Christianity to feather his nest.
But this does not prove or disprove the existence of God either.  It's taken me a while to get to the point but it is this. Hating people who believe in the existence of a creator and seek to do well is not that far removed from an Islamist who seeks jihad and desires to kill all who do not agree with his concept of Allah.
So i do believe that in some (but not all cases) we need to separate the agent from their ideology and accept them as a fellow human being with all its accompanying frailties.

The point is, when you base your beliefs on bullshit, anything goes and anything can be justified. So ditching that nonsensical insanity is the only rational or ethical thing to do.

Your pointing out atheists doing bad things is irrelevant. Atheism in and of itself is a meaningless term as far as describing anyone's beliefs about anything other than gods, there is nothing preventing them from believing in other woo crap nonsense that borders on how outlandishly ridiculous religions are. If you want to make an actual relevant point, try finding a secular humanist and rational skeptic (without some sort of mental condition) who's got a proclivity for the universally distasteful and then we're talking. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Also you've made the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy so please, try to avoid that if you want to be taken seriously. I see you say you're new at this kind of thing so that's a free tip. You would do well to look up an index of all the various fallacies you'll have undoubtedly either already made or contemplated making so you can avoid looking foolish. It's not like your side has any arguments but at least admitting you want to believe in something for no good reason is better than lying about why you do (but not by much).

I'd also like to know in what way separating a person from their ideology prevents a suicide bomber from annihilating an entire busload of people. The ideology being the problem that infects those who hold it, like a pernicious disease that spreads like wildfire. There's no medicine or cure that works 100% of the time, only a vaccine (i.e. NOT indoctrinating them in the fucking first place) that is commonly refused by parents just like all the completely batshit anti-vaccination retards. Why anyone would be okay perpetrating that same level of crazy is beyond me but we see it all too frequently and that's why this whole mindset hasn't gone extinct, otherwise we'd probably see it evaporate within a single generation. It would be great if your beliefs existed in a vacuum but they don't, they have real-world consequences on a macro scale. So when you become an agent of perpetuation, it's no longer just passive, it's an act of direct violation against someone who isn't prepared to critically examine reality and will be affected likely for their entire life.

If you want to try and claim that it's just a matter of reforming the faith, stop. That isn't going to cut it. The entire foundation is built on rancid manure.

So go ahead and continue to be pick 'n mix, I may still resent you for being naive and the passive part of the movement to prevent things from getting any better, but I don't care enough to wish you were getting prison-raped like I do about an asshole like Ken Ham and his ilk. I don't see you defending him and the like, so that's at least something positive. But my drunk driver analogy holds true; just because you reach a different conclusion than him doesn't mean you're not still using the same means (i.e. bullshit). He's just the equivalent of the unfortunate prick who hits someone on the way home while you're the lucky sod who makes it home safe even when you're also well over the limit.

---

The reason I signed up for the forum was that my thinking had been challenged by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. I'm not here to evangelize or try and win arguments but rather to try and recalibrate my compass. So far it hasn't been that pleasant an experience (yours has probably been the most welcoming response), but so be it.
My dilemma is this - no, actually I will keep it to myself for now.
Yes - a lie is a lie is a lie and killing and harming others for a lie (or the supposed truth) is evil.
I will never be an atheist but can see myself well on the way to being an agnostic. I can't prove nor disprove the existence of God.
Right and wrong, however, are reasonably apparent. Killing children because they are an Amalekite or a Foetus is clearly wrong.
And I agree that ideology can and does produce evil. A suicide bomber is a case in point. When it comes to the Taliban, Isis and so forth all you can do to protect others is to kill them as they are so wedded to their ideology (and they admit this themselves).
Your analogy of rancid manure is fair but if a person is genuinely attempting to deprogramme themselves, harsh analogies may well just drive them deeper into their nice, safe, secure delusion.
Anyway, I won't take up any more of your time. I genuinely didn't come here to push a barrow or argue, but it would seem that this is really a forum for quite heated debate, which is fair enough. Hope all goes well with you and yours, thanks again for your time.