Making a general response to the post, now:

I think it is fairly obvious that the LessWrong community is not innately privileged as arbiters of rationality, or of fact. As such, it is reasonable to be cautious about obscuring large portions of your map with new ink; I don't think anyone should criticize you for moving slowly.

However, regarding your hesitance to examine some beliefs, the obvious thing to do (since your hesitance does not tell you whether or not the beliefs are correct, only examining them does) is to make the consequences of your discovery feel less severe. (It is precisely these feelings which are the only true consequences, but that does not make them nonexistent. Keats felt as if Science had murdered the gnomes, though there were no gnomes to be killed.) The author behind Ebon Musings and Daylight Atheist offers Stardust, Fragile Trappings, Extinguishing the Fear of Hell, To Those Who Doubt Their Religion, Green Fields; Greta Christina has Dancing Molecules, Comforting Thoughts About Death That Have Nothing To Do With God, The Meaning of Death: Part One, Two, Three of Many, The Not So Logical Conclusion: On the Morality of Atheists and Believers, Atheism, Bad Luck, and the Comfort of Reason; some people have found comfort in The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by André Comte-Sponville, but I found it annoying; ... the long and the short of it is that there are a lot of places you can look to find reasons not to fear a particular answer to an empirical question. (I could do the same exercise with the negative answer to "do human beings have free will?", for example.)

I think Eliezer Yudkowsky talked about this idea, but his phrasing didn't stick with me.