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

[Minimalist]

There are many natural explanations that can account for reports of miracles.

Yes, for example:

"In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. 'In the one case,' they said, 'the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers.' And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood." (The Histories, 4:81)

This excerpt from P. Cornelius Tacitus actually attributes miracles to the Emperor Vespasian which even the (most probably) interpolated so-called reference to Christus does not do.

Do you really think that Vespasian cured blindness?

[Tonus]

how did existence come into being? Catholics believe God has always been, from eternity to eternity, but how do atheists explain that? Without a supernatural being there from eternity, there is nothingness, how does something come from nothing?

I just want to point out that the flaw in this explanation is that god is not accounted for. Claiming that he is eternal confirms that something as powerful and complex as god --who is often defined as all-powerful and as complex and intelligent as it is possible to be-- can exist without a beginning and simply "always be." If this is the case, then it seems that something far less powerful or complex could also exist without a beginning. Such as a universe that renews itself in a cycle of expansion and contraction, or a bubbling multiverse of realities that constantly spit out new realities through black holes or any of a number of other phenomena that are nowhere near as complex as a god and which are therefore more likely to be the case.

If we reject an infinite regress because we cannot fathom the concept of eternity and can only accept things that begin, then god is a non-starter. He is introduced into the equation with exactly those properties that created the conundrum in the first place. It's the lazy way out.

[Cyberman]

Balaco, why is your god referred to as a "HE/HIS/FATHER"? Why does your god have a sex?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuHw5ivCs1A


He's going to be very popular!

Woof!

[Simon Moon]

There are many natural explanations that can account for reports of miracles.

Yes, for example:

"In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. 'In the one case,' they said, 'the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers.' And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood." (The Histories, 4:81)

This excerpt from P. Cornelius Tacitus actually attributes miracles to the Emperor Vespasian which even the (most probably) interpolated so-called reference to Christus does not do.

Do you really think that Vespasian cured blindness?

Exactly. Christian theists typically are much more likely to use logic, reason and rationality when evaluating supernatural claims of other religions, and come to the correct conclusion about them, i.e., there is no justification to believe they are true.

But they compartmentalize their own cherished beliefs, in order to avoid examining them with the same level of scrutiny.

They then use a long list of fallacious arguments in an attempt to make their beliefs seem more logical and rational, in order to believe they are true.

As you point out, the Bible authors existed in a milieu where EVERYTHING was a supernatural event or portent. That is the background noise that informs the stories in the Bible.

[Catholic_Lady]

how did existence come into being? Catholics believe God has always been, from eternity to eternity, but how do atheists explain that? Without a supernatural being there from eternity, there is nothingness, how does something come from nothing?

I just want to point out that the flaw in this explanation is that god is not accounted for.  Claiming that he is eternal confirms that something as powerful and complex as god --who is often defined as all-powerful and as complex and intelligent as it is possible to be-- can exist without a beginning and simply "always be."  If this is the case, then it seems that something far less powerful or complex could also exist without a beginning.  Such as a universe that renews itself in a cycle of expansion and contraction, or a bubbling multiverse of realities that constantly spit out new realities through black holes or any of a number of other phenomena that are nowhere near as complex as a god and which are therefore more likely to be the case.

If we reject an infinite regress because we cannot fathom the concept of eternity and can only accept things that begin, then god is a non-starter.  He is introduced into the equation with exactly those properties that created the conundrum in the first place.  It's the lazy way out.

The difference between saying God has always been here and saying something in nature has always been here is that God is supernatural. That's the whole point of God - a being that is beyond our natural world and its laws. The laws of nature, as far as we know, state that everything has a beginning. Just as there is no "proof" of God, neither is there "proof" that anything in nature can be infinite, having no beginning. Either way you're taking somewhat of a leap of faith by making either claim.

[Tonus]

The difference between saying God has always been here and saying something in nature has always been here is that God is supernatural. That's the whole point of God - a being that is beyond our natural world and its laws. The laws of nature, as far as we know, state that everything has a beginning. Just as there is no "proof" of God, neither is there "proof" that anything in nature can be infinite, having no beginning. Either way you're taking somewhat of a leap of faith by making either claim.

I am not making that claim, though. I am admitting that I don't know what the answer is. I am also pointing out that if someone is going to offer an answer, they cannot simply make up something that they cannot demonstrate or prove.

Let's say we don't know how the universe came to exist. Based on what we know, it had a beginning. And it makes sense to us that anything that had a beginning must have a cause. My answer to that is... I don't know what that cause is because we don't have enough information or knowledge. We can make guesses, but there is no evidence to corroborate any of our ideas. Someone comes along and insists that since people make watches, there must have been an intelligence that caused the universe to begin. He calls this intelligence "God" and then goes on to define him in a fair amount of detail. He has no evidence for his claim, he's just filling in the blanks with his imagination.

He is taking a leap of faith. I am not. I am waiting on more knowledge and understanding before I go any further than "I don't know." Because when we didn't know what caused lightning, that guy's explantion ("it was god") was wrong. When we didn't know anything about diseases, that guy's explanation ("it's demons") was wrong. When we didn't know enough about the cosmos, that guy's explanation ("the sun revolves around the earth") was wrong. The only thing that guy has going for him is that his legs are much stronger than mine, on account of all of that leaping that he's been doing for the past several centuries.

[Simon Moon]

The difference between saying God has always been here and saying something in nature has always been here is that God is supernatural. That's the whole point of God - a being that is beyond our natural world and its laws. The laws of nature, as far as we know, state that everything has a beginning. Just as there is no "proof" of God, neither is there "proof" that anything in nature can be infinite, having no beginning. Either way you're taking somewhat of a leap of faith by making either claim.

First of all, simply stating that 'god' has always existed, adds nothing. It has no explanatory power, and creates more questions than it answers.

What sort of realm did your god exist in before he created the universe?

If existence did not exist, what was your god acting on when he created the universe? Causation requires time and space. What time and space existed for your god to cause something to exist?

What sort of leap am I taking by positing that existence always existed?

Sorry, but your tu quoque fallacy is unconvincing. Neither is your argumentum ad ignorantiam.

[Catholic_Lady]

The difference between saying God has always been here and saying something in nature has always been here is that God is supernatural. That's the whole point of God - a being that is beyond our natural world and its laws. The laws of nature, as far as we know, state that everything has a beginning. Just as there is no "proof" of God, neither is there "proof" that anything in nature can be infinite, having no beginning. Either way you're taking somewhat of a leap of faith by making either claim.

I am not making that claim, though. 

Fair enough.

---

The difference between saying God has always been here and saying something in nature has always been here is that God is supernatural. That's the whole point of God - a being that is beyond our natural world and its laws. The laws of nature, as far as we know, state that everything has a beginning. Just as there is no "proof" of God, neither is there "proof" that anything in nature can be infinite, having no beginning. Either way you're taking somewhat of a leap of faith by making either claim.

First of all, simply stating that 'god' has always existed, adds nothing. It has no explanatory power, and creates more questions than it answers.

What sort of realm did your god exist in before he created the universe?

If existence did not exist, what was your god acting on when he created the universe? Causation requires time and space. What time and space existed for your god to cause something to exist?

What sort of leap am I taking by positing that existence always existed?

Sorry, but your tu quoque fallacy is unconvincing. Neither is your argumentum ad ignorantiam.

My bold. 

Of course. But so does saying that anything in nature has somehow always existed.

[Minimalist]

But they compartmentalize their own cherished beliefs, in order to avoid examining them with the same level of scrutiny.

They are big on special pleading.  Their bullshit is false but our bullshit is true...because it's ours.

Easily dismissed.

[Balaco]

Good to see a few pages' worth of posts since my last. I don't have too much time on my hands and only got to skim so I'm planning on responding to some tomorrow. On a quick note, though,

Balaco, why is your god referred to as a "HE/HIS/FATHER"? Why does your god have a sex?

I remember questioning this myself, finding the answer to be that God is sexless, but "Father" and masculine terms are apparently associated with giving, while feminine terms are associated with receiving. Don't know much about the origins of this though.