Atheists, tell me, a Roman Catholic: why should I become an atheist?

[robvalue]

We are "supposed" to love god as Father Son and Spirit, not because that is the ultimatum (love me or die!), but rather because love is the most fundamental thing all of us are trying to do with our lives (it's what we want to do), and god as Trinity is the truth about the foundation of everything which we are trying to love.

We want to love well, and knowledge of god as the Trinity and as the ultimate source and object of our love within everything else is necessary in loving the way we actually want.

I love people just fine without having to also love some deity. My love is reserved for real things that I actually interact with in some meaningful way. If I'm interacting with this "God" thing, I'm entirely unaware of it. I have no feelings towards it at all. I have no desire to love everything; nor could I make I myself, even if I wanted to. I hold no ill will against this weird "God" thing, I simply have no fucking idea about it or what it's meant to be doing.

If we have no choice but to love it, then it simply can't exist, because I don't love it. I don't even know what it is.

This also addresses the ideas I've sometimes heard that "if religion X is true then we have no choice but to love God". If that is the case, then the religion is not true, because I do not love God. Pretty simple.

[Tonus]

We are "supposed" to love god as Father Son and Spirit, not because that is the ultimatum (love me or die!), but rather because love is the most fundamental thing all of us are trying to do with our lives (it's what we want to do), and god as Trinity is the truth about the foundation of everything which we are trying to love.

We want to love well, and knowledge of god as the Trinity and as the ultimate source and object of our love within everything else is necessary in loving the way we actually want.

But that's not how love works, at least not that which we feel for other people.  When I think about the people I love, the reasons are never stuff like "well, I read about what a nice person he is and then I found out that he did some really wonderful things for me unselfishly out of a desire for me to have a good life."  I could admire such a person and feel gratitude towards them, but I wouldn't feel genuine love unless I got to know them and understand them and feel a bond of some kind.  Just reading about them wouldn't be enough, nor would I feel love for them if I gave them the credit anytime something good happened, whether they were the cause or not.

I might say that I love an idea, or that I am moved by something magnificent and beautiful, but that's not the kind of love that I would feel for someone I care deeply about.  God in the OT demands recognition and worship, which makes more sense in light of the relationship humanity has with him as a king or ruler.  He's a god of war in the OT, not love.  The writers of the NT apparently decided that he needed to be modernized and completely reversed his nature.  He was no longer Jehovah, the Lord of Armies.  He was the very personification of love and his every action was motivated by love.  He no longer demanded devotion under threat of punishment, he expressed love and sought love in return... under threat of punishment.  Eh, it's progress.

[Ignorant]

So... you're so desperate to love something, that you'll love an idea. [1]

I don't know about you, but I prefer to love another human being. [2]

1) If the idea is true, then I try to love it for what it is.

2) As do I. Loving a person is much more concrete a thing  to love. We claim that the abstract and harder to grasp reality of god's-being became the concrete reality of a human being (i.e. Jesus), so that we could love him the way we naturally prefer. It's hard and not often satisfying to love god purely as the abstract concept of "being" or "goodness" or "truth". It is much easier if "truth" itself becomes a human being whom we may love.

---

I love people just fine without having to also love some deity. [1] My love is reserved for real things that I actually interact with in some meaningful way. If I'm interacting with this "God" thing, I'm entirely unaware of it. [2] I have no feelings towards it at all. I have no desire to love everything; nor could I make I myself, even if I wanted to. [3] I hold no ill will against this weird "God" thing, I simply have no fucking idea about it or what it's meant to be doing. [4]

If we have no choice but to love it, then it simply can't exist, because I don't love it. I don't even know what it is. [5]

This also addresses the ideas I've sometimes heard that "if religion X is true then we have no choice but to love God". If that is the case, then the religion is not true, because I do not love God. Pretty simple. [6]

1) I know you do. I'm not saying you can't. I'm saying that you could love them more if you loved the truest and fullest image of what-those-people-are. On the Catholic account, that full image includes their true source and direction in life, which is the Trinitarian life (i.e. the divine life) itself. It's not that you can't love well without loving god, but rather, you can't love in the fullest sense without god (if the Catholic claim is true).

2) Exactly. You can't love what you don't know. The Catholic faith claims knowledge about what-we-love and how-we-love. That is not to say that you can't love anything without that knowledge. It just means that you can't love as much.

3) I can understand what you are saying. But we can't help but love what is good. We may get the truth about what is good wrong, but we can only love what we find good. The Catholic claim is that there is real goodness in everything that exists, and because of that, you can love everything according to the goodness within them. That doesn't mean you love a tree in the same way that you love your wife, but it does mean that you can love everything in so far as you know what is good about it. That is the claim anyway.

4) Exactly! That abstract oddness of this weird god-thing is difficult if not impossible to love given our own tools to know anything about it. But if that weird thing becomes a human person and lives among us and loves us as a human, then he has given us a way to love the divine in a truly human way.

5) You have no choice but to love the good. IF god is goodness itself, you already love him whether you know it is god or not. Revelation, if through it you know god by faith, provides the knowledge with which you can love the good as god-made-human in Jesus.

6) See #5. The "have no choice to love god" bit isn't an ultimatum. Loving goodness as we understand it is just what human beings are doing. That is what we do. If god is goodness, then the "reason" you have no choice but to love him is because you were already doing it in a mediated and abstract way (i.e. loving goodness in things).

[pocaracas]

So... you're so desperate to love something, that you'll love an idea. [1]

I don't know about you, but I prefer to love another human being. [2]

1) If the idea is true, then I try to love it for what it is.

And why should anyone live their lives under an unconfirmable assumption?

2) As do I. Loving a person is much more concrete a thing  to love. We claim that the abstract and harder to grasp reality of god's-being became the concrete reality of a human being (i.e. Jesus), so that we could love him the way we naturally prefer. It's hard and not often satisfying to love god purely as the abstract concept of "being" or "goodness" or "truth". It is much easier if "truth" itself becomes a human being whom we may love.

And this brings us to the big problem of JC having been what you think he was.
Doesn't it sometimes feel like the religion is just adding layers of padding to keep you away from reality?
Let's say there was a preacher from Galilee who taught people to be loving, under the protection (more like assumption) of the all-mighty-ruler-father Jewish god, Yahweh, El, An... call it what you will.
How do you take the leap from such a person, to ""truth" itself becomes a human being whom we may love."?
What does it take to deify a person?... if accounts from the time are anything to go by, not much - cue in pharaohs!

Why do you accept as trustworthy the tales of a god becoming human, stemming from a time and place where it was common to make the people believe in the godly nature of some humans?

[Ignorant]

But that's not how love works, at least not that which we feel for other people.  When I think about the people I love, the reasons are never stuff like "well, I read about what a nice person he is and then I found out that he did some really wonderful things for me unselfishly out of a desire for me to have a good life."  I could admire such a person and feel gratitude towards them, but I wouldn't feel genuine love unless I got to know them and understand them and feel a bond of some kind. [1] Just reading about them wouldn't be enough, nor would I feel love for them if I gave them the credit anytime something good happened, whether they were the cause or not. [2]

I might say that I love an idea, or that I am moved by something magnificent and beautiful, but that's not the kind of love that I would feel for someone I care deeply about. [3] God in the OT demands recognition and worship, which makes more sense in light of the relationship humanity has with him as a king or ruler.  He's a god of war in the OT, not love. [4] The writers of the NT apparently decided that he needed to be modernized and completely reversed his nature. [5] He was no longer Jehovah, the Lord of Armies. [6] He was the very personification of love and his every action was motivated by love.  He no longer demanded devotion under threat of punishment, he expressed love and sought love in return... under threat of punishment.  Eh, it's progress. [7]

1) I couldn't agree more.

2) I agree.

3) Me either.

4) Are those two somehow mutually exclusive? 

5) Obviously I don't share that conclusion.

6) Every day at a Catholic Mass, god is referred to as "Lord God of Hosts", which is the same thing as "Lord of Armies".

7) Exactly. God revealed himself progressively through the Law and the Prophets, and finally and fully in Christ. There are several difficult passages in the Old Testament when considering god as love itself. But there are more passages in the Old Testament that pose a difficulty for the caricature of god in the OT as totally opposite to the god revealed in Jesus Christ.

---

And why should anyone live their lives under an unconfirmable assumption? [1]

And this brings us to the big problem of JC having been what you think he was.
Doesn't it sometimes feel like the religion is just adding layers of padding to keep you away from reality? [2]

Let's say there was a preacher from Galilee who taught people to be loving, under the protection (more like assumption) of the all-mighty-ruler-father Jewish god, Yahweh, El, An... call it what you will.
How do you take the leap from such a person, to ""truth" itself becomes a human being whom we may love."? [3]

What does it take to deify a person?... if accounts from the time are anything to go by, not much - cue in pharaohs! [4]

Why do you accept as trustworthy the tales of a god becoming human, stemming from a time and place where it was common to make the people believe in the godly nature of some humans? [5]

1) What assumption?

2) Not really, no.

3) Because that same preacher said that he was "the way and the the truth and the life" (Jn 14:6). I believe him. I get that you don't, but if that Catholic claim is true, and Jesus really is truth incarnate, then loving the abstract reality of truth is mediated by loving a human person named Jesus of Nazareth.

4) If you still think what a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim means when they say the word "god" or "allah" is something comparable to Zeus or the Egyptian gods, then I understand why you would say that. But you have the question reversed. It isn't "what does it take to deify a person", but rather, "what does it take for divinity itself to become human?"

5) The only answer here is faith. I believe Jesus is who he says he was, and that isn't the conclusion of a syllogistic argument. The historical evidence of Jesus, his words, his action (especially his resurrection) are not undeniable. It is a historical fact supported by evidence that people reported that Jesus healed people through his own divine power and rose from the dead by that same power, but it is not a historical fact supported by evidence that Jesus actually healed people by divine power or that he rose from the dead. Therefore, to accept that Jesus was god incarnate, healed people through his divine power, and rose from the dead by that same power, is consistent with the historical evidence, but it is not a conclusion that necessarily follows from that evidence. So, what gets me from the evidence to the conclusion is faith.

[Tonus]

4) Are those two somehow mutually exclusive?

A being of incomparable power and wisdom would not need war. That he chose to personify it implies a primitive approach to dealing with people.

6) Every day at a Catholic Mass, god is referred to as "Lord God of Hosts", which is the same thing as "Lord of Armies".

I was referring to the difference between the forceful persona in the OT and the gentler one in the NT.

7) Exactly. God revealed himself progressively through the Law and the Prophets, and finally and fully in Christ. There are several difficult passages in the Old Testament when considering god as love itself. But there are more passages in the Old Testament that pose a difficulty for the caricature of god in the OT as totally opposite to the god revealed in Jesus Christ.

But he is, as I noted above, the almighty. He doesn't just fight battles, he personifies military power and overwhelming strength of arms. At various times he not only kills --or orders the killing of-- soldiers, he sees to the death of entire tribes and even their livestock, and in some cases even their valuable goods (an order that was so strict that he punished Israel when one man tried to hide some items instead of destroying them). At other times he allows the taking of wives from among the virgin girls who have just watched their families massacred and their lands ravaged. He gives instructions on how to demand that a tribe surrender to them as slaves or face annihilation. This is not a god whose people are being forced into war... he is imposing genocidal levels of destruction on entire cities so that his chosen nation can take the land.

I think it's fair to consider this as being totally opposite to the version that is the very personification of love.

[pocaracas]

And why should anyone live their lives under an unconfirmable assumption? [1]

And this brings us to the big problem of JC having been what you think he was.
Doesn't it sometimes feel like the religion is just adding layers of padding to keep you away from reality? [2]

Let's say there was a preacher from Galilee who taught people to be loving, under the protection (more like assumption) of the all-mighty-ruler-father Jewish god, Yahweh, El, An... call it what you will.
How do you take the leap from such a person, to ""truth" itself becomes a human being whom we may love."? [3]

What does it take to deify a person?... if accounts from the time are anything to go by, not much - cue in pharaohs! [4]

Why do you accept as trustworthy the tales of a god becoming human, stemming from a time and place where it was common to make the people believe in the godly nature of some humans? [5]

1) What assumption?

The assumption that a being compatible with your definition of god exists.

2) Not really, no.

I know...
That's why they made this:

---

---

I also know you'll disagree with that sentence...

3) Because that same preacher said that he was "the way and the the truth and the life" (Jn 14:6). I believe him. I get that you don't, but if that Catholic claim is true, and Jesus really is truth incarnate, then loving the abstract reality of truth is mediated by loving a human person named Jesus of Nazareth.

And how many preachers have since (and before) claimed similar things, but were ignored?
You believe what has been written that he said. Such an extraordinary claim seems... well... extraordinary. Could have just been a deepity, or something that he never actually said... or something else...

4) If you still think what a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim means when they say the word "god" or "allah" is something comparable to Zeus or the Egyptian gods, then I understand why you would say that. But you have the question reversed. It isn't "what does it take to deify a person", but rather, "what does it take for divinity itself to become human?"

No, I don't have the question reversed.
I'm talking about human beings - people who believe things... things which are not necessarily true.
People who believe in the existence of gods, be them Zeus, or Allah, or El.

5) The only answer here is faith. I believe Jesus is who he says he was, and that isn't the conclusion of a syllogistic argument. The historical evidence of Jesus, his words, his action (especially his resurrection) are not undeniable. It is a historical fact supported by evidence that people reported that Jesus healed people through his own divine power and rose from the dead by that same power, but it is not a historical fact supported by evidence that Jesus actually healed people by divine power or that he rose from the dead. Therefore, to accept that Jesus was god incarnate, healed people through his divine power, and rose from the dead by that same power, is consistent with the historical evidence, but it is not a conclusion that necessarily follows from that evidence. So, what gets me from the evidence to the conclusion is faith.

Faith, another word for belief, another word for "accept as trustworthy". My question remains: why?
Why have faith? Why believe? Why accept as trustworthy?

[Whateverist]

I believe you (the part I bolded).  But you're not very representative among the believers we get through here or know in RL.  That is what makes you especially nice to have around - well, one of the reasons.  (I think quite a few are also charmed by your poop obsession.)  Likewise there are plenty of us who don't feel angry over what people believe, some of us are even intrigued by it.

You left out the fact that she's hawt. Anyone who has seen her backside in a bathing suit can attest to this.

You have pictures?!!!!  Why you no share?

---

You left out the fact that she's hawt. Anyone who has seen her backside in a bathing suit can attest to this.

Silly Nymphadora, catholics are never attractive. No offense CL.

Goes to show how much you know.  Cath-y is from Brazil, the country where butt building is practically the national sport!

[robvalue]

Well, unless you dismiss the whole bible as fiction Ignorant, we have Yahweh himself showing us how evil he is. I don't really know what your idea of God has to do with Christianity at all. I know it was devised to be Christian, but it's so far removed from the bible that it's just some deistic figure.

[Catholic_Lady]

We are "supposed" to love god as Father Son and Spirit, not because that is the ultimatum (love me or die!), but rather because love is the most fundamental thing all of us are trying to do with our lives (it's what we want to do), and god as Trinity is the truth about the foundation of everything which we are trying to love.

We want to love well, and knowledge of god as the Trinity and as the ultimate source and object of our love within everything else is necessary in loving the way we actually want.

I love people just fine without having to also love some deity. My love is reserved for real things that I actually interact with in some meaningful way. If I'm interacting with this "God" thing, I'm entirely unaware of it. I have no feelings towards it at all. I have no desire to love everything; nor could I make I myself, even if I wanted to. I hold no ill will against this weird "God" thing, I simply have no fucking idea about it or what it's meant to be doing.

If we have no choice but to love it, then it simply can't exist, because I don't love it. I don't even know what it is.

This also addresses the ideas I've sometimes heard that "if religion X is true then we have no choice but to love God". If that is the case, then the religion is not true, because I do not love God. Pretty simple.

A more simplified version: God is love and goodness. If you love those things, you love God. That is our understanding.