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

[Jehanne]

I can speak as a formerly traditionalist Roman Catholic:

My views on politics and society revolve around the notions that we are all in this together and that everyone should be afforded respect. However, the Catholic Church mandated that I oppose things like marriage equality and access to contraceptives despite the fact that these two things can improve quality of life for people. Gay people should be free to love whomever they want to love, and condoms/birth control pills should be readily available.

I was unable to reconcile my social progressivism and religious beliefs. So I chose the former over the latter.

Francis is, of course, trying to push things into a more  progressive direction, but as he does that more and more, then you have the problem of the so-called infallible Church contradicting itself on its so-called "infallible" teachings.  I am a former traditional Catholic, also, but as I posted earlier in this thread, I left the Church for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was all the contradictions that occurred between one Pope and another.  It just got too silly to believe in it, and the "smells & bells" were not enough to keep me interested.  In the end, I was faithless, that is, without a faith!

[Joko]

I can speak as a formerly traditionalist Roman Catholic:

My views on politics and society revolve around the notions that we are all in this together and that everyone should be afforded respect. However, the Catholic Church mandated that I oppose things like marriage equality and access to contraceptives despite the fact that these two things can improve quality of life for people. Gay people should be free to love whomever they want to love, and condoms/birth control pills should be readily available.

I was unable to reconcile my social progressivism and religious beliefs. So I chose the former over the latter.

Francis is, of course, trying to push things into a more  progressive direction, but as he does that more and more, then you have the problem of the so-called infallible Church contradicting itself on its so-called "infallible" teachings.  I am a former traditional Catholic, also, but as I posted earlier in this thread, I left the Church for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was all the contradictions that occurred between one Pope and another.  It just got too silly to believe in it, and the "smells & bells" were not enough to keep me interested.  In the end, I was faithless, that is, without a faith!

As much as I love Pope Francis as a guy (he's really cool) -- let's not exaggerate how progressive is reforms have been. He is completely opposed to LGBT equality (anti-marriage rights, anti-adoption), is against abortion/contraceptives in all cases, hasn't budget on ordaining women, etc. I really feel like he would be the kind of person who would be in favor of these things but he is constrained by his faith.

[Jehanne]

Francis is, of course, trying to push things into a more  progressive direction, but as he does that more and more, then you have the problem of the so-called infallible Church contradicting itself on its so-called "infallible" teachings.  I am a former traditional Catholic, also, but as I posted earlier in this thread, I left the Church for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was all the contradictions that occurred between one Pope and another.  It just got too silly to believe in it, and the "smells & bells" were not enough to keep me interested.  In the end, I was faithless, that is, without a faith!

As much as I love Pope Francis as a guy (he's really cool) -- let's not exaggerate how progressive is reforms have been. He is completely opposed to LGBT equality (anti-marriage rights, anti-adoption), is against abortion/contraceptives in all cases, hasn't budget on ordaining women, etc. I really feel like he would be the kind of person who would be in favor of these things but he is constrained by his faith.

He has already contradicted his predecessors on the issue of the divorced and civilly remarried receiving the Sacraments, the Holy Eucharist especially (note:  not that any of that stuff is real to begin with!), and so, if he can change the Church's so-called "infallible" teachings on that, he or his successors can change any teaching:



And, so, everything, for Francis, is on the table; maybe not in his lifetime, but certainly, over the next several centuries.  Francis does not want a formal schism within the Church; that is why he is moving slowly, inch by inch.  Most Catholics could care less; for them, Catholicism is kind of a "pro forma" religion that they were born into, and so, they go through the motions and/or indoctrinations.

As for me, I have better things to do with my time and money and don't buy any of it anymore.  In fact, with Francis, I think that Catholicism is a joke, which means that it always was a joke, even when nearly all of Europe took it seriously.

[GUBU]

I can speak as a formerly traditionalist Roman Catholic:

My views on politics and society revolve around the notions that we are all in this together and that everyone should be afforded respect. However, the Catholic Church mandated that I oppose things like marriage equality and access to contraceptives despite the fact that these two things can improve quality of life for people. Gay people should be free to love whomever they want to love, and condoms/birth control pills should be readily available.

I was unable to reconcile my social progressivism and religious beliefs. So I chose the former over the latter.

Francis is, of course, trying to push things into a more  progressive direction, but as he does that more and more, then you have the problem of the so-called infallible Church contradicting itself on its so-called "infallible" teachings.  I am a former traditional Catholic, also, but as I posted earlier in this thread, I left the Church for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was all the contradictions that occurred between one Pope and another.  It just got too silly to believe in it, and the "smells & bells" were not enough to keep me interested.  In the end, I was faithless, that is, without a faith!

I honestly don't think that Bergoglio's all that progressive. Remember, as head of the Jesuits in Argentina he was perfectly happy to rat out his own subordinates to the junta. And listen to what he says in countries like the Philippines or when he's talking to your one who refused to marry gay couples. His message then is no different than Ratzinger's ot Wojtyla's, he's just much better at seeming than the last two popes were.

[Jehanne]

Francis is, of course, trying to push things into a more  progressive direction, but as he does that more and more, then you have the problem of the so-called infallible Church contradicting itself on its so-called "infallible" teachings.  I am a former traditional Catholic, also, but as I posted earlier in this thread, I left the Church for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was all the contradictions that occurred between one Pope and another.  It just got too silly to believe in it, and the "smells & bells" were not enough to keep me interested.  In the end, I was faithless, that is, without a faith!

I honestly don't think that Bergoglio's all that progressive. Remember, as head of the Jesuits in Argentina he was perfectly happy to rat out his own subordinates to the junta. And listen to what he says in countries like the Philippines or when he's talking to your one who refused to marry gay couples. His message then is no different than Ratzinger's ot Wojtyla's, he's just much better at seeming than the last two popes were.

Kind of invoking the principle of "falsification," it only takes one doctrine to be changed, and the whole house of cards come crumbling down, at least in my opinion.  Consider this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

Now, Amoris laetitia (from Francis):

"Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any 'irregular' situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding 'its inherent values', or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin." (paragraph 301)

In my opinion, the above citations blow-away any notion of the Catholic Church's so-called "infallibility", and this is just what one would expect from religions, if they were man-made (and, they are); they not only contradict each other they contradict themselves.  "God's law" is flexible, which means, per the ontological so-called proof, "God" cannot be a perfect Being with a perfect moral will, blah, blah, blah.

I have much better things to do with my time, and I hope that you do as well!!

[Balaco]

It's been quite a while, so I should probably pop in and mention that I'm still looking into the validity of religion, though I've toned it down over the past few weeks due to various reasons. Tomorrow I'm planning on setting aside a lot of time to focus more on the facts and the "strongest" theistic arguments, now that I've gotten a clear picture on the general perspective of atheists and theists.

[vorlon13]

it's a dilemma for the church, hold the line and wind up with more empty churches, or modernize the strictures, dogma, edicts, rules, commandments, and doctrines and take longer to wind up with more empty churches

[Cyberman]

I'd just like to emphasise the distinctions between religion, theism/atheism and gods. As in they're not even close to being the same thing, though there is a degree of overlap. Proving the existence of a god, for instance, has no bearing on any religion; they could all still be wrong.

[Keith]

I became an agnostic due to proof reasons. And I'm happy to be one

[robvalue]

Welcome to the forum Keith

I'd just like to emphasise the distinctions between religion, theism/atheism and gods. As in they're not even close to being the same thing, though there is a degree of overlap. Proving the existence of a god, for instance, has no bearing on any religion; they could all still be wrong.

And even if they are right, they can still be morally bankrupt. God can be an arsehole. If Christianity is to be believed for example, that's exactly what he is. The idea that God has to be good is a massive unfounded assumption.