New Pope Elected: Centuries Of Make-Believe (Religion) Reaffirmed For The Masses

[Silent3]

262. How do I deal with the "crux of (your) argument" if you won't make a clear crux?

When did I say my criteria for a "true believer" was only a matter of whether the believer holds "extreme" (however you wish to define that) beliefs?

Some beliefs have more hateful results than others, some beliefs fly more in the face of contrary evidence than others, but as for being worthy of being treated as factual information, a nice liberal "Jesus loves you!" is as factually challenged as "God hates fags!".

You're acting as if the only important distinction is whether the end result of religious belief is people being generally nicer people. And that is an important distinction, but not the only one, and a curious distinction since you end up needing to evaluate the good and the evil of religion by purely secular standards to make that distinction.

But that's not the only distinction that matters to me. How much people are living in a fantasy world also matters in what I think about religion. (Please, please spare me, if you are now tempted, the weak "you can't prove them wrong!" gambit, as if a thing not being disprovable is just as good as that thing being supported by evidence.)