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

[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.