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

[The Valkyrie]

You shouldn't, not because an atheist tells you why you should.

As an atheist I don't see it as my job to deconvert people to atheism.

Believe what you want. Be who you are.

The only thing I ask is that you don't try to convert a person once they've already told you "no", and that you ask don't use those beliefs to hurt other people.

[Minimalist]

Remember that there are two creation accounts.

A fact which drives xristards so crazy that they deny the plain writing of their own fucking story!

[Cyberman]

You want a good reason not to believe this stuff?

Here's a pretty good start:

[Asmodee]

People often take that to mean "mankind", and it does say that in Genesis 1, but if you recall the story of creation from Genesis 2, God only actually "created" Adam, the man.  So when the Bible says that God made man in his own image, it is not talking about mankind, it is talking about a literal man.  Eve was an afterthought, not "created" at all, but formed from a piece of man.

Remember that there are two creation accounts.  In Genesis 1:27 it states "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."  God then goes on to address both of them when he offers his blessing and grants them dominion over the whole planet.  It is the second account that separates them and places the man above the woman by making her a companion who was created to fulfill a need (Genesis 2:18-- The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”).

It seems as if --depending on the writer and the needs of the particular story-- women are treated as ornaments most of the time in those early stories, until the law given to Moses turns them into property (Exodus 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”).  And of course, in spite of the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman and that any exception to this is fornication or adultery, later stories have the men marrying multiple women and keeping concubines because LOL CULTURE.

Yeah, I have a JW friend try to convert me every month or two and he has often given me the "It was a different time" BS explanation.  Did you know that God was never okay with slavery because slavery is bad, but he tolerated that sin because people of that time weren't ready for such a change?  Never mind that this baseless claim assumes that God created everything, but then just kind of left man to his own devices for some period of time before taking interest again and coming back to find that we suddenly weren't ready to be completely righteous right at that particular moment.  To make this work we have to have creation with the immediate follow up of law, broken law, God goes away, apparently no longer expecting us to be righteous, God comes back and finds that not only are we not righteous, abolishing the sin of slavery would totally upset our economy, which, apparently, even he can't fix.  So he allowed it for a while but, being the kind and gentle God he is, set down some ground rules...  Whatever.

[Edwardo Piet]

But but but but... but Steambum... the donkey wasn't literally talking. A donkey is also known as an ass and that clearly represents what The People Of The Lord are talking out of.

[GUBU]

Remember in christianity, as in judaism women are considered to be things to be possessed, not people in their own right.

Hasn't been my experience at all.

Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.

-CCC 1935

That's because you've neither read the bible nor listened to your religious leaders. Tell me again why the seniormost position for a woman within the rcc is flower arranger?

[Catholic_Lady]

Hasn't been my experience at all.

-CCC 1935

That's because you've neither read the bible nor listened to your religious leaders. Tell me again why the seniormost position for a woman within the rcc is flower arranger?

Both statements are false, sir.

[LadyForCamus]

You want a good reason not to believe this stuff?

Here's a pretty good start:

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[Balaco]

Sorry for falling behind on all the posts...I'm on a pretty tight schedule this week and I can't really make too much time to look into things as extensively.

You are committing a fallacious reasoning known as Argumentum ad populum.
I still marvel at how lots of people are unaware of this fallacy.





What?! How people witness what they say?
Eye-witness testimony is well known to be the least trustworthy of all evidence.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/h...ists-weigh



1) "look for there existing ANYTHING" - of course, how else could anything exist? Only through the existence of something else!! Of course, makes total sense!
2) "causes and effects" - proof that energy is being exchanged. Paraphrasing a famous physicist, "no god is required"
3) "contingency" - I had to check with a dictionary, it means "a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.". So, the world is a complex one and our simple simian brains cannot grasp all the details. Big news!
4) "corruptible composition" - how do they come up with these terms? I have no idea what this is supposed to pertain to.
5) "intrinsic purposes" - Last time I checked, purpose was something in the domain of conscious creatures. What does 'intrinsic' mean in here?

Ah... all this nonsense points to some "first cause", which is magically "uncreated, simple, infinite, etc" and conveniently call it "god"... thus transforming it into a very complex entity, with all the baggage that comes with any religion (all religions claim to have one of their gods as the creator of everything, right?)

It's always interesting to note the chronology of things - First came belief in gods, then came these arguments to keep people believing under the illusion of firm reasoning.





Oh, the horrible personal cost!


Just because someone believes in something very dearly and is ready to suffer and even die for that belief, it does not mean that the thing being believed in is real.
Texts claiming to portray the tales relayed by those who were there... reminds me of the Red Book of Westmarch:
"
The Red Book of Westmarch is a [...] manuscript written by hobbits[...]

It is a collection of writings in which the events of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were recounted by their characters, and from which Tolkien supposedly derived these and other works.
"

Add pinch of magic... and... yeah... it's the same thing.


yeah... it's not definite. But, for many, it's enough to strengthen their own belief, so it's a valid tactic.
If I was a believer and found that argument persuasive, I'd naturally try to convey it to you, hoping that you too would find it persuasive.

It looks to me that Balaco is running a parallel discussion on his quandary both here and at forums.catholic.com. The post he quoted which you replied to Pocaracas is this one here, by a poster e_c.

And after scanning through that thread, and reading this one, I must say kudos to Balaco for keeping an open and honest debate going through his indecision of faith.

---

Oh, Balaco, I'd like you to ask e_c regarding his assertion that early christians wouldn't die for a lie if islam is also true as millions also died for that (some of whom are dying this very day), or if nazism is true (considering the thousands of Waffen SS and Wehrmacht recruits who died in the sincere belief that Hitler was right).

Just because people are willing to give their lives for an idea, that doesn't give it a free pass on showing the idea is right.

Seems like you were able to oppose every point, pocaracas...I'll get to analyzing that (and asking e_c about his claim) later.

---

Hi! I am sorry for chiming in late. Welcome to this site! I am currently an agnostic, but I feel that I can still somewhat try to answer your question.
I was also raised Catholic and went to a Roman Catholic elementary school and secondary school. I woke up every morning, prayed a Hail Mary, an Our Father with my classmates, we would often have religious posters around the school, and we would have religion class. In Religion class we would talk about God and how God loves us very much. We would talk about heaven (a place you go if you are good) and a place called hell (where you go if you are bad). We also read some kids versions of bible stories. Until I got to my first year of high school, I never really thought about the validity of religion. That is what I was taught, so I accepted it. I believed that God created the world in 7 days, that Jesus lived about 2000 years ago, that Adam and Eve were the first people, etc. In my first year of high school, we took a trip to a science museum. We happened to pass a section on the evolution of some animals. I remember in particular being fascinated by the evolution of the sloth. Our tour guide told us what evolution exactly entailed, and how humans evolved too. Then, she told us that there are numerous theories about how life came to planet earth. One theory that stuck with me was the theory of a meteor hitting the earth with bacteria on it. Essentially, this bacteria would populate the earth and slowly evolve to the life that exists today. Suddenly, I realized that it didn't in fact make sense that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. If evolution is in fact true, that means that the start of earth according to the bible was not true... not fully true at least. Then, I realized that if I could not accept certain parts of the bible, that it did not make sense to accept the bible at face value as a whole. Learning more about science and the scientific theories caused me to be skeptical about the existence of a creator. However, I am still not fully convinced that there is no creator, and neither is any true atheist. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean that you believe that no creator exists.  According to Matt Dillahunty, it essentially means that you have a lack of a belief in a creator. Some people dismiss science as "too materialistic". I get it. However, science is the only reliable method we know of at the moment to come up with answers about the world around us and the cosmos. That is not to say that there is no such thing as a creator, but according to Matt Dilahunty, it kind of goes along the lines of: we can't prove that something exists,  we cannot disprove it, so why believe it if we have no way to verify that it in fact exists?
Also, with regards to prayers, I am skeptical about those. I think the reason people feel good when they pray is because it is psychological. People like the idea of imagining that a supernatural being with a loving personality is listening to them and their griefs, problems, etc. I don't think praying works in general. Think about this, one person may pray and survive a deadly disease. Was that because the prayer worked, or was it a coincidence? What about all the people in the world who are living in countries going through war who pray for the war to end and it does not? What about all the people who starve and pray for food?
The point is, praying is good in the sense that it can make one feel better, but I feel it is not reasonable to assume that it has an affect on anything in reality.
Being a Catholic, you don't have to dismiss the idea of a creator if you don't feel comfortable in doing so. I don't know your age or your knowledge when it comes to science, but I think it may be a good idea to research some of the scientific explanations the world and the universe, and how it came to be. If you are not that familiar with religion, read the bible. See which one makes more logical sense to you.
All the best,
Violeta

So evolution and science was what solidified your doubts. I've been meaning to look into evolution; from a video I watched debunking David C. Pack's statements, including one about evolution being a myth, it seems like there's a lot of evidence on the side of evolution.

---

(Sorry if this comes up as a double post)

In response to the posts about tests of our faith, from my understanding their moreso for our benefit so that we can determine our strengths/weaknesses, growing closer to God as we ask for His help.

As you ask for help that you can never really be sure you actually received. You have to admit, if you were going to create a scheme of BS to get a group of people to follow your teachings/give you money, you'd be hard pressed to come up with a more effective line of bullshit.

Step 1. Scare the shit out of them - "You're going to burn in hell for all of eternity"
Step 2. Offer them a solution - "If you follow my religion, you won't burn in hell, instead you'll receive endless reward."
Step 3. Make sure they're afraid to doubt you - "You will never have any evidence that god exists so you MUST just believe without evidence AND god will know if you doubt and if you doubt, he'll make sure you burn in hell for all of eternity."

You gotta admit its a well designed scheme.

Objectively speaking, I will say that a lot of aspects about religion seem like they could pertain to the interests of people of authority, like the points you raised, and some rules and sins regarding the faith. (homosexuality etc.). If I'm to believe in God and his values, obviously I need to find reasonable grounds to supplement that with.

---

On another note, over the past few days I've noticed I've been seeing the number 66 a lot more lately (I actually made a post about this on the Catholic Forum and it actually turned out to be my 66th post there, ironically).

I feel like a logical answer would be that I noticed the number once a few days back, and my mind started becoming fixated on the chance that it could be a sign from God...and now my mind is making more note of it when I see it than usual. Is this what you guys would think?

[Tonus]

Yeah, I have a JW friend try to convert me every month or two and he has often given me the "It was a different time" BS explanation.

Ugh, don't remind me... I was raised a JW.

My response to the notion that God allowed cultural identities to keep him from acting is to point out that there were plenty of times when God took decisive and brutal action for all kinds of reasons. He struck down a man whose only crime was to try and steady the ark of the covenant when the oxen carrying it stumbled. He slaughtered 70,000 Israelites because their king took a census. He wiped out 99.99% of all life on the planet because he was angry with how they were behaving.

But slavery? Equality for women? Newp. I guess that --for a person whose method of dealing with things was usually to kill first and ask questions later-- he simply lacked the quality of nuance.