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

[pocaracas]

Now now... You said "necessary being". no backsies! : [1] 
If you are wanting to say that it is equivalent to a "necessary creator", then that's where my problems begin. [2]

I don't like a creator being a being. [3]
A creator of the Universe can be many things... most of them not conscious.
Also, just because we can infer a start to our Universe, that does not mean that, if there is something beyond our Universe, it too had some sort of start and that it too requires some creator. [4]
Are you starting to see why I mentioned "argument from ignorance", earlier? [5]

Just below your username, it says "catholic"... I assumed you made that leap at some point in your life... so why not go there?... [6]

1) Right... which is the same thing as being-itself.

2) Good, because I definitely have never wanted to say that.

3) I don't like the creator being "a" being. Instead, a creator would be "being-itself".

4) I agree. "Historical" understandings of "cosmological" arguments (tracing causality through time to a 'beginning") are dead ends.

5) Yes I do see why you mentioned that. I don't see why you think all of Thomas's arguments are such arguments. I can see the 2nd way, and maybe even the 1st, but not the 3rd 4th and 5th.

6) Because the question was about the falsifiability of the concept of god. I brought up a concept of god which is in principle falsifiable. If you want to ask, "Well what about the falsifiability of the Trinity?!?", it seems like it doesn't belong in the point of the conversation when we are still discussing the most basic concept of god at all. Why discuss the more complex issue when you haven't even begun to agree about the simpler one?

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention to the conversation before I jumped in.... what's this "being-itself" that you speak of?

5) Ignorance can be divided in a few categories. I'll go with two, the "known unknowns" and the "unknown unknowns".
We know that we don't know how our Universe came into being, hence inserting a god as the kick-starter is wishful thinking, at best.
Way 3 seems to refer to the ignorance of nothingness. An ignorance which we are mostly unaware of. For one cannot claim that such a state as total philosophical nothingness ever existed. Ignorance of how the universe came into being... again!
Way 4 is just silly. Good is a concept used between humans. That which is good depends on the people involved. Some people think Brexit is good, others think it's bad. What is good, in this context? I admit that, within a single population, the "goodness" of the way people treat each other can be quite homogeneous and make it look like one can devise an ultimate goodness where every person is pleased... but in today's intermingled world that is increasingly difficult... someone will always feel treated badly.
But I leave to you the exercise of defining "good". I like it when believers realize that words have multiple meanings and it's important to know exactly which meaning you're using at each moment. I want to use the same as you. As for me, I think this works on an overall ignorance of how "good" is determined within a population.
Finally, the fifth way (oh, look.. this link has them all) stems from the ignorance of how intelligence can arise from purely deterministic bio-chemical operations. Granted, even science is mostly ignorant of the mechanism by which intelligence arises from the complexity of the human brain's neurons, but that's where it seems to reside, that's where we'll get our answers... and I seriously doubt that the answer will be "this bunch of neurons cannot possibly convey rational thought, it is clearly being bestowed, before birth, from some external, all-permeating intelligence"...