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

[AceBoogie]

I isolated and bolded this because I truly think god is just an expression of oneself. One's interpretation of religion is also an expression of oneself. It's interesting how we as humans relate to the world we relate everyone and everything to ourselves without even realizing it. When you 'feel' god I truly believe you are feeling your 'higher self' if you want to call it that.
God, the voice in your head, is simply another idealized version of you as a perfect, moral, loving being.

This sounds an awful lot like "wait but why." Does that sound familiar?

No I'm not sure what you mean

[Catholic_Lady]

This sounds an awful lot like "wait but why." Does that sound familiar?

No I'm not sure what you mean

I think you will really like this article: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/religion-f...gious.html

It's long but worth the read when you get the chance. Perhaps as toilet reading lol.

[Ben Davis]

I think you will really like this article: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/religion-f...gious.html

It's long but worth the read when you get the chance. Perhaps as toilet reading lol.

I read it and found many factual errors and questionable premises. Consequently, I can't agree with suggested methodologies or outcomes. I'll post a response to it but don't have the time right now

[AceBoogie]

No I'm not sure what you mean

I think you will really like this article: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/religion-f...gious.html

It's long but worth the read when you get the chance. Perhaps as toilet reading lol.

Are you saying I'm full of shit

[Catholic_Lady]

I think you will really like this article: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/religion-f...gious.html

It's long but worth the read when you get the chance. Perhaps as toilet reading lol.

Are you saying I'm full of shit

Not at all! 

I actually thought it was an interesting article. The article seemed to describe what you were saying when you said "When you 'feel' god I truly believe you are feeling your 'higher self' if you want to call it that. God, the voice in your head, is simply another idealized version of you as a perfect, moral, loving being." It talks about each one of us having a higher self that gets clouded by animalistic instincts and such.   

[Balaco]

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.

So... god created us with brains that would logically tell us that he does not exist to test our faith in his existence? Which means god wants us to go against our own reason and logic and blindly follow his word? Would he want us to treat anything else with the same type of blind ignorance or loyalty? Would a loving god want us to just blindly follow anything because a claim is made by someone that doing so makes us better somehow? I think pretty much any theistic answer to this would relate to the claim that God is logical and we have to educate ourselves on that properly (however that is). Unsure how this holds up in general and in relation to the below points.

I've been looking into that and need to see how theist justifications hold up logically.

Why would a book that is supposed to be the perfect and infallible word of god have any contradictions or fallacies in it? What justification can there be for that? They're not seen as contradictions/fallacies by Christians. By "justifications", I meant how Christians explain the possible contradictions/fallacies and why they don't treat them as such. If these justifications don't hold up, meaning the Bible contains blatant errors, then yeah the idea of the Bible is pretty much invalidated.

Christianity seems to have so many different branches due o 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. 

So the earlier a religion was founded the more invalid its tenets and ideas? I wouldn't necessarily say that, but it does seem like a common pattern, considering ancient religions in particular. So Scientology is one of the most, if not THE most accurate religions of all time?

And does the fact that Christianity is composed of so many different denominations somehow make it more accurate because it has "survived" all of this miscommunication and error? Why would a god allow us to come up with so many incorrect interpretations of one holy, infallible book? Does that make sense to you? I won't lie, I don't know how to refute this. I don't know if I can even say it's to help us grow in our faith, as it kind of seems like the opposite to me. I'll try to get the perspective of other theists on this.

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.

So your god has to allow someone to lose a limb before allowing them to grow as a person? Why couldn't god just have injected some other type of extreme circumstance in their life that would allow them to grow or change as a person? I don't know, and the theistic answers I've seen seem to conclude it's because God considers it best for them and the people around them. One theist I read about apparently considers the amputation of her then-infant son's feet to be a calling for her to be a special mother, and speak to others about God.

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

So god allows us the free will to be evil? He allows us to choose evil actions. From my understanding, if people have mental/psychological problems that prevent them from knowing any better/having control over their actions, they're not necessarily held responsible for them. Though I don't know why God would even allow people to be uncontrollably evil like that, so I'll probably look into it. 

So does that mean that god does not intervene or perform miracles? I can't really see how this point alone would disprove how God doesn't perform miracles.

Is fate predetermined? If so how can we have free will if our fates are predetermined? Fate is said to be determined by our actions and how they relate to the love we owe to God. Not sure how this factors in with the fact that some people are psychologically considered evil.

What about hurricanes or other natural disasters that wipe out thousands of people at a time... Are those the result of free will? Are those things caused by god? If so... does that not mean that god is cruel? Not 100% sure if God directly causes individual disasters at times, but in general He allows these terrible events to occur just like anything else in the world. I've heard it's to strengthen our faith through tough times and suffering, grow closer to victims, etc. 

I was raised in the faith, and never questioned it until now (which I realize is common among theists).

So you are a Christian for no reason other than because your parents were Christians? Basically, yeah. Though I've followed and tried to grow stronger in the faith myself, of course. Obviously I can't say whether I'd even take religion seriously if my parents were atheists.

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.

So then what gives Christianity any more validity than Islam? Don't you think that Muslims feel just as strongly about their beliefs as Christians do? Who is right? That's one of many things that have come to mind lately. There's a bunch of religions in the world, and a bunch of denominations of them, all strongly believing they're right. I realized the other day that if I remain a theist after all of this, then by the same reasoning behind why I'm questioning theism in general, I'll have to look into what religion is even correct. Even if Christianity is correct, I don't even know if Roman Catholicism is even the correct Christian faith to follow.

To be completely clear, I am just trying to walk you through these questions. You are well on your way to discovering that you are an atheist, trust me. But you have to follow all of these questions through because otherwise you will be thwarted by simple, yet deceptive tactics that many theists use to just brush these questions off and act like they don't exist. Keep following these questions through. Keep searching for more and more answers. If your god is real, surely he will bring you to the conclusion that he does, in fact, exist. Thanks for your input, and you raise some points that I feel will definitely help me one way or another.. Sorry if my rebuttals are too weak or insufficient even for a theist – like I've said this is pretty much the first time I've been questioning the faith in depth, and I'm trying to stay objective and avoid preaching.

[AceBoogie]

I think pretty much any theistic answer to this would relate to the claim that God is logical and we have to educate ourselves on that properly (however that is). Unsure how this holds up in general and in relation to the below points.

How is the concept of god logical?

They're not seen as contradictions/fallacies by Christians. By "justifications", I meant how Christians explain the possible contradictions/fallacies and why they don't treat them as such. If these justifications don't hold up, meaning the Bible contains blatant errors, then yeah the idea of the Bible is pretty much invalidated.

A group of religious folks claiming that their favorite book contains no logical fallacies doesn't make it so. Also, shouldn't a perfect, infallible holy book be a clear concise text? Why should perceived fallacies need to be explained away or perceived contradictions need to be justified? Shouldn't a perfect holy book deliver a clear message to all? It is, in fact, The Word of God.

I wouldn't necessarily say that, but it does seem like a common pattern, considering ancient religions in particular.

I won't lie, I don't know how to refute this. I don't know if I can even say it's to help us grow in our faith, as it kind of seems like the opposite to me. I'll try to get the perspective of other theists on this.

So why is every logical gap in the Christian philosophy a 'test of faith' rather than just being a logical gap. Isn't it interesting that christians call anything that challenges their worldview a 'test of faith?'

I don't know, and the theistic answers I've seen seem to conclude it's because God considers it best for them and the people around them. One theist I read about apparently considers the amputation of her then-infant son's feet to be a calling for her to be a special mother, and speak to others about God.

So god does intervene in people's lives? Then how does free will exist? Also is it a loving god that allows his children to be amputated in order to 'grow as a person?' Is that god loving and just? Also does that not seem like a justification coming from the mother of that child that allows her to psychologically deal with the fact that her baby is disabled? Why should a child have to suffer such horrible things? Is that a loving god that allows that? Why does god not intervene then? God allowed a child's feet to be amputated just so the mother could be 'special?' Does that really make sense to you?

He allows us to choose evil actions. From my understanding, if people have mental/psychological problems that prevent them from knowing any better/having control over their actions, they're not necessarily held responsible for them. Though I don't know why God would even allow people to be uncontrollably evil like that, so I'll probably look into it.

So what about folks who were never told about god? Do they go to hell? And why would god allow us to be evil? Does that not mean that god is willingly let evil exist in the world?

I can't really see how this point alone would disprove how God doesn't perform miracles.

Fate is said to be determined by our actions and how they relate to the love we owe to God. Not sure how this factors in with the fact that some people are psychologically considered evil.

How can god allow us to have free will if he intervenes by performing miracles...? How is fate predetermined by our actions and the 'love we owe god?' Please explain.

Not 100% sure if God directly causes individual disasters at times, but in general He allows these terrible events to occur just like anything else in the world. I've heard it's to strengthen our faith through tough times and suffering, grow closer to victims, etc. 

So once again it's the 'test of faith' argument... Aren't you starting to see a pattern here?

Basically, yeah. Though I've followed and tried to grow stronger in the faith myself, of course. Obviously I can't say whether I'd even take religion seriously if my parents were atheists.

You can't say whether you take religion seriously yet you have tried to grow stronger in 'the faith?' How so?

That's one of many things that have come to mind lately. There's a bunch of religions in the world, and a bunch of denominations of them, all strongly believing they're right. I realized the other day that if I remain a theist after all of this, then by the same reasoning behind why I'm questioning theism in general, I'll have to look into what religion is even correct. Even if Christianity is correct, I don't even know if Roman Catholicism is even the correct Christian faith to follow.

Isn't it interesting that people of all faiths around the world will use the same exact answers that you have used to counter the questions that I have asked you? Doesn't this expose a pattern to you?

[Balaco]

Operator, I plan on responding to your points in more detail, but I feel like I should do a little more research before responding to some of them. For now, I will say that the "test of faith" has come up many times through my research over the weeks, and I can definitely understand the atheist point that it's just used to "justify" otherwise unexplainable events and keep people faithful. Growing up believing in God, my mind is obviously conditioned to believe that these "tests of faith" are valid, but I'm trying to think on it objectively.

As for this,

Basically, yeah. Though I've followed and tried to grow stronger in the faith myself, of course. Obviously I can't say whether I'd even take religion seriously if my parents were atheists.

You can't say whether you take religion seriously yet you have tried to grow stronger in 'the faith?' How so?

Sorry if I phrased it oddly, but I meant that, if my parents were hypothetically atheist – meaning that I wouldn't have necessarily been raised following a faith/religion – then I don't know if that hypothetical version of me would ever follow a religion (or take any religion seriously).

---

As I wait for some theist responses to some of my questions, I'm finally looking into the ontological argument. From what I've read so far, atheists feel like it can be used to show that a maximally being doesn't exist – because it's possible for it not to exist. I also feel that even if a maximally great being exists in one "possible world", it doesn't necessarily have to exist in every possible world...it could just be maximally great to that world. The argument doesn't seem to define a "maximally great" being as a being that is "maximally great" in all possible worlds. "Maximally great" seems to have subjective definitions as well.

I did come across a theist argument that nonbelievers have to maintain that it's impossible for God to exist due to the logic of the argument. What're your thoughts on this, guys? I think my point about how a maximally great being existing in one possible world doesn't necessarily mean it exists in all possible worlds (among other things) would negate this.

[Incognito]

I'm going to quote Arno Dorian and Ezio Auditore here (Assassin's Creed)

"The Creed of the Assassin Brotherhood teaches us that nothing is forbidden to us. Once, I thought that meant we were free to do as we would. To pursue our ideals, no matter the cost. I understand now. Not a grant of permission. The Creed is a warning. Ideals too easily give way to dogma. Dogma becomes fanaticism. No higher power sits in judgement of us. No supreme being watches to punish us for our sins. In the end, only we ourselves can guard against our obsessions. Only we can decide whether the road we walk carries too high a toll. We believe ourselves redeemers, avengers, saviours. We make war on those who oppose us, and they in turn make war on us. We dream of leaving our stamp upon the world... even as we give our lives in a conflict that will be recorded in no history book. All that we do, all that we are, begins and ends with ourselves"

"Twenty-two years ago, I stood where I stand now – and watched my loved ones die, betrayed by those I had called friends. Vengeance clouded my mind. It would have consumed me, were it not for the wisdom of a few strangers, who taught me to look past my instincts. They never preached answers, but guided me to learn from myself. We don't need anyone to tell us what to do; not Savonarola, not the Medici. We are free to follow our own path. There are those who will take that freedom from us, and too many of you gladly give it. But it is our ability to choose – whatever you think is true – that makes us human... There is no book or teacher to give you the answers, to show you the path. Choose your own way! Do not follow me, or anyone else."

In a nutshell, I'm not going to waste my time telling you why you should become an Atheist. I'm an Atheist because there is no proof for any of the religions but that doesn't mean I'm immoral. If you believe that you need faith, go ahead, believe whatever the hell you want.

[Pat Mustard]

Operator, I plan on responding to your points in more detail, but I feel like I should do a little more research before responding to some of them. For now, I will say that the "test of faith" has come up many times through my research over the weeks, and I can definitely understand the atheist point that it's just used to "justify" otherwise unexplainable events and keep people faithful. Growing up believing in God, my mind is obviously conditioned to believe that these "tests of faith" are valid, but I'm trying to think on it objectively.

As for this,

You can't say whether you take religion seriously yet you have tried to grow stronger in 'the faith?' How so?

Sorry if I phrased it oddly, but I meant that, if my parents were hypothetically atheist – meaning that I wouldn't have necessarily been raised following a faith/religion – then I don't know if that hypothetical version of me would ever follow a religion (or take any religion seriously).

---

As I wait for some theist responses to some of my questions, I'm finally looking into the ontological argument. From what I've read so far, atheists feel like it can be used to show that a maximally being doesn't exist – because it's possible for it not to exist. I also feel that even if a maximally great being exists in one "possible world", it doesn't necessarily have to exist in every possible world...it could just be maximally great to that world. The argument doesn't seem to define a "maximally great" being as a being that is "maximally great" in all possible worlds. "Maximally great" seems to have subjective definitions as well.

I did come across a theist argument that nonbelievers have to maintain that it's impossible for God to exist due to the logic of the argument. What're your thoughts on this, guys? I think my point about how a maximally great being existing in one possible world doesn't necessarily mean it exists in all possible worlds (among other things) would negate this.

There are two problems with ontology. The first is that just because we can imagine a being with certain attributes its exisrence is not guarantted (think invisible pink unicorns). The second is that "maximally great" is a subjective value judgement. Toranic and biblical depictions of a "maximally great" yhwh shows a being that can do less than what humanity is currently capable of. Hence yhwh isn't a maximally great being.