Hmm. I think you are reading things that aren't there, if I may say so. Just because the shirt I am wearing is blue, it doesn't mean that all shirts are blue. It doesn't mean that all of my shirts are blue.

For some people, religion acts as a set of rules. It limits your behaviour and stops you from doing things that you might otherwise do. Take the religion away and, again for some people, you remove those rules. They may then decide that they are free to break those rules. The emphasis is on the words "some" and "may".

If someone lets their Jewish faith lapse, they may decide to eat a pork chop.

Not everyone reacts this way.

My post was in answer to the OP asking about a bad atheist versus a good atheist. So I positted a range of possibilities from the "yippee - all rules are off" to the ultra humanist viewpoint. And many shades of grey in between.

I emphatically did not say that all atheists are child abusers or that all child abusers are atheists. With the greatest of respect, you need to read what I actually wrote and not what you think I wrote or what you think I should have written. You might think that I left myself wide open for your interpration or that I skirted the issue. The reality is that I said nothing about how many child abusers are atheists. It simply isn't there.

Whenever the TV networks show "Close Encounters" the police switchboards are jammed with people reporting UFO sightings. It doesn't mean that the UFOs only come out when Close Encounters is on television. It doesn't mean that we become more observant after seeing the film.

It means that people are seeing things that they want to see.

I have no idea whether Gordon Gecko was an atheist or not. But he was portrayed as an amoral character, a person with few rules.

And my shirt is still blue.