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

[Tonus]

Got to admit I'm curious what you mean by "proof reasons".

I figured that he was comparing it to a theist being convinced by "poof! Reasons!"

[Mr Greene]

There is of course; The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli if you felt like reading something specifically about the operation of the Pontiff.

CHAPTER XI — CONCERNING ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPALITIES

It only remains now to speak of ecclesiastical principalities, touching which all difficulties are prior to getting possession, because they are acquired either by capacity or good fortune, and they can be held without either; for they are sustained by the ancient ordinances of religion, which are so all-powerful, and of such a character that the principalities may be held no matter how their princes behave and live. These princes alone have states and do not defend them; and they have subjects and do not rule them; and the states, although unguarded, are not taken from them, and the subjects, although not ruled, do not care, and they have neither the desire nor the ability to alienate themselves. Such principalities only are secure and happy. But being upheld by powers, to which the human mind cannot reach, I shall speak no more of them, because, being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the act of a presumptuous and rash man to discuss them.
Nevertheless, if any one should ask of me how comes it that the Church has attained such greatness in temporal power, seeing that from Alexander backwards the Italian potentates (not only those who have been called potentates, but every baron and lord, though the smallest) have valued the temporal power very slightly—yet now a king of France trembles before it, and it has been able to drive him from Italy, and to ruin the Venetians—although this may be very manifest, it does not appear to me superfluous to recall it in some measure to memory.
Before Charles, King of France, passed into Italy,(*) this country was under the dominion of the Pope, the Venetians, the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, and the Florentines. These potentates had two principal anxieties: the one, that no foreigner should enter Italy under arms; the other, that none of themselves should seize more territory. Those about whom there was the most anxiety were the Pope and the Venetians. To restrain the Venetians the union of all the others was necessary, as it was for the defence of Ferrara; and to keep down the Pope they made use of the barons of Rome, who, being divided into two factions, Orsini and Colonnesi, had always a pretext for disorder, and, standing with arms in their hands under the eyes of the Pontiff, kept the pontificate weak and powerless. And although there might arise sometimes a courageous pope, such as Sixtus, yet neither fortune nor wisdom could rid him of these annoyances. And the short life of a pope is also a cause of weakness; for in the ten years, which is the average life of a pope, he can with difficulty lower one of the factions; and if, so to speak, one people should almost destroy the Colonnesi, another would arise hostile to the Orsini, who would support their opponents, and yet would not have time to ruin the Orsini. This was the reason why the temporal powers of the pope were little esteemed in Italy.
(*) Charles VIII invaded Italy in 1494.
Alexander the Sixth arose afterwards, who of all the pontiffs that have ever been showed how a pope with both money and arms was able to prevail; and through the instrumentality of the Duke Valentino, and by reason of the entry of the French, he brought about all those things which I have discussed above in the actions of the duke. And although his intention was not to aggrandize the Church, but the duke, nevertheless, what he did contributed to the greatness of the Church, which, after his death and the ruin of the duke, became the heir to all his labours.
Pope Julius came afterwards and found the Church strong, possessing all the Romagna, the barons of Rome reduced to impotence, and, through the chastisements of Alexander, the factions wiped out; he also found the way open to accumulate money in a manner such as had never been practised before Alexander's time. Such things Julius not only followed, but improved upon, and he intended to gain Bologna, to ruin the Venetians, and to drive the French out of Italy. All of these enterprises prospered with him, and so much the more to his credit, inasmuch as he did everything to strengthen the Church and not any private person. He kept also the Orsini and Colonnesi factions within the bounds in which he found them; and although there was among them some mind to make disturbance, nevertheless he held two things firm: the one, the greatness of the Church, with which he terrified them; and the other, not allowing them to have their own cardinals, who caused the disorders among them. For whenever these factions have their cardinals they do not remain quiet for long, because cardinals foster the factions in Rome and out of it, and the barons are compelled to support them, and thus from the ambitions of prelates arise disorders and tumults among the barons. For these reasons his Holiness Pope Leo(*) found the pontificate most powerful, and it is to be hoped that, if others made it great in arms, he will make it still greater and more venerated by his goodness and infinite other virtues.
(*) Pope Leo X was the Cardinal de' Medici.

[Pat Mustard]

If I'm gathering this all correctly, I think I may have to agree with these points. To be fair I haven't looked into the Catholic perspective/counterarguments of these points as of posting this response, so I'll have to see if they have any validity.

Are you sure that you were raised as a Roman Catholic?  If so, it seems for someone like you, a "cradle Catholic", not to know about this aspect regarding the infallibility of the ordinary and supreme Magisterium of the Church.

The church doesn't like to emphasise its shortcomings. Thus you get lots of kids being told that the pope is right, but none of them being told what happens when one pope contradicts another, or even instances where it happens.

Most people don't really learn about their religion until they get curious enough to question it. And for most people that doesn't happen.

[Jehanne]

Are you sure that you were raised as a Roman Catholic?  If so, it seems for someone like you, a "cradle Catholic", not to know about this aspect regarding the infallibility of the ordinary and supreme Magisterium of the Church.

The church doesn't like to emphasise its shortcomings. Thus you get lots of kids being told that the pope is right, but none of them being told what happens when one pope contradicts another, or even instances where it happens.

Most people don't really learn about their religion until they get curious enough to question it. And for most people that doesn't happen.

For most people (Catholics, especially), their religion is a pro forma type of activity.  As I tell my extended family who questions why I am an atheist, "I care too much about religion to believe in it."

[Astonished]

Before I begin, I ask that you please avoid being hostile or anything. I'm a Roman Catholic, but I feel like many people of faith immediately jump to degrading atheists as people, rather than trying to understand their mindset. I'm heavily confused right now, and am asking both Catholic and atheist sites for their mindsets. Obviously, Catholics are going to defend Catholicism, while atheists are going to defend atheism. I ask that you please be civil about it, as this could be life-changing for me.


I've been questioning how to improve in my Roman Catholic faith lately...but this morning I came to the realization that I never really questioned my faith itself. I was lightly raised Catholic and recently took it upon myself to grow closer to God. Now, for probably the first time in my life, I feel like I'm genuinely considering atheism as a possibility.

From what I understand, atheists do not accept the possibility of a supernatural being, and restrict themselves to our "natural" human thinking. Previously I thought that atheists are simply conditioned by society to the point where they are unable to "rationally" believe in a supernatural being...God doesn't allow us universally undeniable proof of his existence as a test of faith. Now, though, I feel like it's impossible to tell whether that mindset is correct, or whether atheists are correct in their focusing on our natural human mindsets. I do feel like I've felt something while praying throughout the past. 

The other night, for example, I was planning on praying for about fifteen minutes, but felt oddly calm and ended up taking about an hour. Now I feel like that could have just been because I was comfortable, and my mind was "making things up" as I was more convinced in my faith.


Atheists, why do you reject the idea of God, and why should I? I know that your answers will include "there's no evidence" and all that, but please try to explain.

If you have never read your bible in a sincere way, that goes a long way in deconverting from Judeo-Christian religions. You will see that god lies to people all the time in it, is a brutal dictator with no compassion, has ridiculous standards for the ridiculous and nebulous concepts of his eternal rewards and punishments, and has not bothered to deliver this only means of revealing himself to his people in a way that is free of inconsistency and contradiction. This demolishes the idea that this is in any way a perfect, loving, just, or even competent let alone omniscient, god.

So why does this not result in simple deism, where we believe there is a creator but that there is simply no discernable way to know his will, or whether he even gives a shit and didn't just fuck off after creating the universe and setting everything in motion? Well firstly that would be a pointless concept and have no bearing on existence and therefore be literally no different than atheism unless you're a cosmologist or astrophysicist, and secondly what we HAVE discovered scientifically is a universe that functions well enough without a sentient creator, as well as evidence that, if there was a creator, they are enormously incompetent and inefficient, and would know that they're giving us that impression so if they cared, they didn't feel like doing anything about it, and if they didn't care, they're just as incompetent as we thought.

Really, there is no reason TO believe, ultimately. Zero. Not a fucking thing. There are virtually limitless reasons NOT to believe. That's what it all boils down to, bro. So if you've come to grips with the fact that the version of this false picture of what the bible paints the world to be, a romanticized fiction of a fiction, you'll see that this was nothing more than something intended to impress illiterate stone-age peasants and that modern humans have no excuse to allow themselves to be duped by it, and the harm it causes worldwide on a daily basis in more forms than can be reasonably counted. What's that saying? "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." I normally don't subscribe to that, but with religion, you bet your ass I do.

[Balaco]

If I'm gathering this all correctly, I think I may have to agree with these points. To be fair I haven't looked into the Catholic perspective/counterarguments of these points as of posting this response, so I'll have to see if they have any validity.

Are you sure that you were raised as a Roman Catholic?  If so, it seems for someone like you, a "cradle Catholic", not to know about this aspect regarding the infallibility of the ordinary and supreme Magisterium of the Church.

Well, I'd say I technically was...my parents got me baptized, made me take CCD classes for a while and go through the processes for some of the sacraments. Though my parents don't follow or even seem to care about the teachings at all, to the point where I can barely remember anything about God coming up in our house. Which naturally crippled my knowledge for a while. Maybe "raised Catholic" isn't exactly the right phrase to use.

[Jehanne]

Are you sure that you were raised as a Roman Catholic?  If so, it seems for someone like you, a "cradle Catholic", not to know about this aspect regarding the infallibility of the ordinary and supreme Magisterium of the Church.

Well, I'd say I technically was...my parents got me baptized, made me take CCD classes for a while  and go through the processes for some of the sacraments. Though my parents don't follow or even seem to care about the teachings at all, to the point where I can barely remember anything about God coming up in our house. Which naturally crippled my knowledge for a while. Maybe "raised Catholic" isn't exactly the right phrase to use.

Catholicism, for most, is a pro forma religion, a place to have one's marriage and funeral.  With the rise of the "nones" (non-religious), you can get those services elsewhere; no need to waste time and money on useless crap.

[The Grand Nudger]

We call ourselves (or we don't..and others identify us as) cultural catholics.  Lapsed Catholics, non-practicing catholics, "fallen from the faith"....there has always been a designation.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Before I begin, I ask that you please avoid being hostile or anything. I'm a Roman Catholic, but I feel like many people of faith immediately jump to degrading atheists as people, rather than trying to understand their mindset. I'm heavily confused right now, and am asking both Catholic and atheist sites for their mindsets. Obviously, Catholics are going to defend Catholicism, while atheists are going to defend atheism. I ask that you please be civil about it, as this could be life-changing for me.


I've been questioning how to improve in my Roman Catholic faith lately...but this morning I came to the realization that I never really questioned my faith itself. I was lightly raised Catholic and recently took it upon myself to grow closer to God. Now, for probably the first time in my life, I feel like I'm genuinely considering atheism as a possibility.

From what I understand, atheists do not accept the possibility of a supernatural being, and restrict themselves to our "natural" human thinking. Previously I thought that atheists are simply conditioned by society to the point where they are unable to "rationally" believe in a supernatural being...God doesn't allow us universally undeniable proof of his existence as a test of faith. Now, though, I feel like it's impossible to tell whether that mindset is correct, or whether atheists are correct in their focusing on our natural human mindsets. I do feel like I've felt something while praying throughout the past. 

The other night, for example, I was planning on praying for about fifteen minutes, but felt oddly calm and ended up taking about an hour. Now I feel like that could have just been because I was comfortable, and my mind was "making things up" as I was more convinced in my faith.


Atheists, why do you reject the idea of God, and why should I? I know that your answers will include "there's no evidence" and all that, but please try to explain.

Think back into history and imagine Martin Luther sitting in some Catholic pad.  At that time everyone in the region was a Catholic.  But one day Martin got a bug up his butt and said that he was fed up with the Catholic thing.  So he shacked up with a nun and then started telling other Catholics that he, of all people, had experienced some sort of divine revelation that his new, untried, and unproven way of thinking was straight from God.  And guess what?  Instead of the local yokels whacking him upside the head and burning him at the stake they believed him!  

So time passes and about half of Europe runs to the new cult and the cults spend years killing each other.   Then the French Catholics started calling the Protestant heretics "atheists" as a curse word for them.  

So today "atheists" reject both cults just like Martin Luther had originally rejected the Catholic cult that he had grown up in and even held a leadership role in.

[francesocialmedia]

The only reason to "become" an atheist is because you do not believe in God. If you want to become an atheist, then you need to change your belief your belief around God's existence. This is ultimately your responsibility