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

[AceBoogie]

I love how every thread derails after like 10-15 pages. It's interesting to watch.

Yeah, I'm far more interested in the questions Balaco is asking and how he's using his answers. I hope he keeps coming back.

I agree. The original topic is often more interesting than the topics that later derail the discussion but it's interesting how it happens with every thread. Human nature I guess.

Things for OP to consider

The historical evidence for Jesus is shaky at best.

Many religions have a story very similar to that of Jesus' about their prophet.

There is no objective, quantifiable evidence for any gods or supernatural beings.

There really isn't even any evidence for anything supernatural.

The Bible is a bronze age collection of stories that are historically inaccurate and it contains many contradictions and logical fallacies.

If one religion is true why are there so many religions?

Why doesn't your god heal amputees?

Why does evil exist?

Why did you become a Christian?

What drew you to the specific denomination of Christianity that you belong to?

If you were born in Syria, would you have become a Muslim?

Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions and all three religions regard the first five books of the Old Testament, or the Torah, as a holy book.

Realize that there may be no good reason that we can give you for becoming an atheist, but rather understand that it may just be a matter of you being more honest with yourself about what you think, feel and believe.

[Tonus]

Ah, you see. That right there is a tell that there's no there there.  When people have dozens, no, millions, of different descriptions of a thing, there's no thing there.  It becomes obvious from the different descriptions that more than one of them *could not* have direct experience with the thing in question. And therefore multiple stories are a dead givaway for a lack of evidence.

This. Theists will claim that god is supernatural and exists outside of our reality and cannot be tested or confirmed by science, but via different means. Yet throughout human history we have 'confirmed' millions of gods in dozens --if not hundreds-- of religions and tens of thousands --or more-- denominations within them. And we know that there are people who 'confirm' god through any number of spiritual or metaphysical or other means and then end up 'confirming' a completely different god at a later time in their lives. The methods they claim to use to confirm god cannot get them to a consensus. Indeed, it seems no different than any other form of tribalism in that it is largely based on where we are born and who influences us when we're too young to figure it out for ourselves.

If even the people who come here boasting about their irrefutable proof of god can't get their story straight, then god needs to step up her game already.

[johan]

I would not say "wrong" is necessarily the right word. But we do recognize that it is not infallible Church Doctrine. It was written thousands of years ago and can be interpreted many different ways, and for that reason can't be considered "fool proof".

So when catholics come here and claim the bible is the infallible word of god, I can now tell them that they're an idiot and completely wrong. Got it. Thanks.

[pocaracas]

I would not say "wrong" is necessarily the right word. But we do recognize that it is not infallible Church Doctrine. It was written thousands of years ago and can be interpreted many different ways, and for that reason can't be considered "fool proof".

So when catholics come here and claim the bible is the infallible word of god, I can now tell them that they're an idiot and completely wrong. Got it. Thanks.

Just remember to discern Christian from Catholic when you do that.

[Tonus]

I think they're more likely to go with that when they're preaching to the choir or when they're new here. Otherwise, it's some form of "it was inspired by god but written by fallible men."

[johan]

I think they're more likely to go with that when they're preaching to the choir or when they're new here.  Otherwise, it's some form of "it was inspired by god but written by fallible men."

Until you try to tell them jesus never said squat in the bible about gay people nor gay marriage. Then suddenly all that inspired by god but written by fallible men crap seems to go right out the window and it becomes those people aren't like me and they need to change their ways of sin or they can just burn in hell for all I care.

[Balaco]

Yeah, I'm far more interested in the questions Balaco is asking and how he's using his answers. I hope he keeps coming back.

I agree. The original topic is often more interesting than the topics that later derail the discussion but it's interesting how it happens with every thread. Human nature I guess.

Things for OP to consider

The historical evidence for Jesus is shaky at best.

Many religions have a story very similar to that of Jesus' about their prophet.

There is no objective, quantifiable evidence for any gods or supernatural beings. I know that, and depending on the atheist or theist perspective, the response to that would be that it's a test of faith (which I've seen conflicting views about), or simply that God isn't real.

There really isn't even any evidence for anything supernatural. ^

The Bible is a bronze age collection of stories that are historically inaccurate and it contains many contradictions and logical fallacies. I've been looking into that and need to see how theist justifications hold up logically.

If one religion is true why are there so many religions? Earlier religions seem to have spawned to try to provide an answer to "supernatural" things that were actually natural but had a lack of evidence. Which is why they're easily disregarded. 

Christianity seems to have so many different branches due to a mix of miscommunicated information and differing interpretations. Yet it's still relevant today, as it manages to adapt and provides justifications for supernatural events that "technically" can't be fully disproven (regardless of they're actually rational justifications). 

I definitely can see how all this can work against religion.

Why doesn't your god heal amputees? From my understanding, it's seen as a test to help them grow stronger in a sense. If God isn't real, that also explains why they don't get healed, so I guess the "right" answer depends on whether God is actually real.

Why does evil exist? A consequence of free will, or because there is no God. Again, the answer to that depends on whether God is real.

Why did you become a Christian? I was raised in the faith, and never questioned it until now (which I realize is common among theists).

What drew you to the specific denomination of Christianity that you belong to? ^

If you were born in Syria, would you have become a Muslim? By the logic of the above two, probably. Which is another reason why I feel like I need to actually question my faith rather than blindly accepting what I was born into.

Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions and all three religions regard the first five books of the Old Testament, or the Torah, as a holy book.

Realize that there may be no good reason that we can give you for becoming an atheist, but rather understand that it may just be a matter of you being more honest with yourself about what you think, feel and believe.

Before I even read this post, I decided to type up atheist points that seem valid, to keep them in mind, and was going to post them here and on the Catholic Forums. A lot of my responses to this post actually align with my notes, but I'll just leave them unedited for the most part...

• seems like there's an atheistic explanation for anything theistic 
  
• Pack's videos for example have AronRa apparently refuting every single point...with what seems to be valid logic
  

• while God "can't" be disproven, could that be because the religion justifies it (possibly irrationally) in way so that God "technically" "can't" be disproven?
  
• theistic arguments might ignore/unreasonably stretch facts to defend God
  
• miracles for example may have logical, natural explanations.......but theists might put them in a perspective that "technically" "can't" be disproven by involving God
  
• Bible contradictions might also be an example.....may be legitimate contradictions that prove the Bible is unreliable........or there really could be a valid theist explanation
  

• God/religion could be a manifestation of our minds/personalities
  
• we might feel good when we feel like we've pleased God, bad when we feel like we've offended him........because our minds have formed the idea/image of him 
  
• faith can be so strong and widespread because of how we're conditioned to it from birth.............so hard to let go because of the risk of God being real and atheists being wrong ("The fool says in their heart there is no God.") (definitely can connect to this myself)
  
• many people don't even question their faith due to their conditioning (again, this applies to me) and continue to justify it without looking at potentially valid atheistic points
  
• (EDIT) which supports why religion is so geographical
  
• faith may grow in complexity due to justifications (rational or irrational) to stop people from denying the faith
  
• many religions seemed to have started out in ancient times to serve as an explanation for things that weren't understood (sickness, natural disasters)
  
• scientists are predominantly atheist possibly because they find the answers to those things that weren't understood
  

[Tonus]

seems like there's an atheistic explanation for anything theistic

I wouldn't put it that way since the 'atheistic explanation' for some things is "we don't know." Theists will occasionally use this lack of an answer as justification for whatever they happen to believe, but that should be unsatisfying to anyone who is sincerely concerned with truth. The need to prove what you claim is not erased by a lack of counterclaims. Aronra's dissection of David Pack's videos shows how Pack uses outdated information and deception to build a case that god has to exist, as opposed to producing positive evidence that god does exist. This is, to me, one of the greatest points against any claims of "proof" for god-- the best theists can seem to come up with is "god is necessary" instead of "god is real."

[robvalue]

The answers you have come up with are more to do with sceptics, rather than atheists. Self proclaimed sceptics are almost always atheists, it's a direct result. But not all atheists are sceptics. Some arrive at atheism through ways other than analysis of evidence. Theists tend to shy away from the label, because their techniques do not follow those of science and logic.

You're right. God has to be carefully defined so that it can't be proven to not exist. Because if it could, then it would. This isn't an accident. It's the same with almost all religious claims. They can't be proved wrong. They are unfalsifiable. This makes them useless. (Not necessarily wrong, just useless, because their truth value can never be determined.) I have a video on this which I'll fish out in a minute.

Whenever religion makes a non-trivial falsifiable claim, it usually gets falsified almost immediately.





Also, trying to use "can't prove it isn't" as an argument for why something is true is called the argument from ignorance fallacy. I explain this below.

[Mr Greene]

Don't worry, I'm going to stick around at least until I feel like I've made a genuine conclusion about the existence of God.

Currently I've been looking a little more into why Christians believe in God (I've seen some ideas about how God could be a manifestation of our own ego, for example) to gain some perspective before I look into the ontological/teleological/etc. arguments.

Perhaps it would be interesting to look at the origins of the gods themselves;
ie; the paintings of Lascaux and the Venus Figurines. 
Contemplate what they meant to the people who made and used them.