Thank you.

But who gets to say who is fit and who is not? This could devolve into 1984 type situations VERY easily. For example, why stop at sterilizing pedos? Why not keep people who are in prison for drugs from breeding? Sterilize murderers. Sterilize retarded people, autistic people. Sterilize those with "bad political views". Sterilize people when the population gets too high. When taxes are too high.

Sarcasm to prove a point. Thing is, don't ever plan on giving a government control over people's bodies if you don't want it taken to the nth degree. You might never be able to walk it back. People's bodies should be treated as sacred, even the bodies of people we hate.

And if golden rule, karma doesn't belong in an atheistic argument about morality, then what DOES belong in an atheistic argument about morality? What can you possibly say, then?

It is important to understand why that is the case. My view on this is that priests dont become pedophiles but rather pedophiles become priests. Priests are highly trusted members of their communities with a lot of respect and authority, they also generally have access to children, this position would make a perfect cover for a child molester. Also there is a tradition in catholic comunities where if the parents suspected their child of any perversions they would force them to become priests, hoping that a religious lifestyle would cure them.

I wasnt trying to state that atheism supports pedophillia and that atheists are the ones promoting it, but rather moral subjectivists would, and atheism tends to support subjectivism more than objectivism which religions tend to support.

Not saying atheism or theism is better than the other, this is more an argument about subjectivism (morality is decided by me and only applies to me) and objectivism (morality is universal and applies to all), subjective morality allows pedophillia, while objective morality doesnt.

Agreed, moral subjectivists can justify whatever they want and slither out of any moral responsibility, i consider it disgusting but to them they just dont care. The culture we live in in the west abhors responsibility, moral subjectivism therefore is extremely appealing to self interested thinkers. If a moral subjectivist culture becomes the majority, then it will be difficult to actually combat this.

Therefore, i think it is important to come up with an atheistic form of moral absolutism, its easy for theists, but atheists tend to be religiously opposed to anything theists support, including objective morality.

I guess the only real takeaway from what im trying to say is that atheists need to come up with an argument to oppose subjectivist morality to ensure they have a chance to combat pedophillia.

Nobody with any sense in their brain would say it's ok for Christians to murder and not ok for atheists. If it's wrong, it's wrong. So, when say the Catholic Church was practicing widespread mass murder in the name of God during the Inquisition, that was wrong.

Anyone can do something wrong and lie and say they are doing it for the right reasons. That doesn't mean that all people within the same belief system are the same and it's silly to paint them all with the same brush. It's the same as saying all Muslims are terrorists, when it is obvious they are not.

Not sure who you are to tell me that it's a mistake. I'll be the one to decide if my choice to place faith in God was a mistake, thankyouverymuch.

And I'm every bit as justified in telling someone what to do as you are with your "humanist" perspective.