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

[Balaco]

Don't worry, I'm going to stick around at least until I feel like I've made a genuine conclusion about the existence of God.

Currently I've been looking a little more into why Christians believe in God (I've seen some ideas about how God could be a manifestation of our own ego, for example) to gain some perspective before I look into the ontological/teleological/etc. arguments.

[Catholic_Lady]

help me understand how to determine a statement to be infallible

If its a) in the bible, b) uttered by the pope or c) uttered by a church council that the pope says is correct. 

Incorrect.

---

No one can know for sure, but we believe since the baby is an innocent child he is with God. As for the moms who have abortions, I'm sure it depends on a lot and is taken on a case by case basis, just like with everyone/everything else.

You are SURE? or you HOPE?

But if all those babies are in heaven, god must purchase a lot of pampers

Personally I feel very sure about that. But the Church cannot officially declare with certainty who is in Hell or Heaven (with the exception of canonized saints). But it is the general consensus among Catholics that unborn babies are with God.

---

[quote pid='1461452' dateline='1480722306']

Then the Church are teaching the Bible wrong. Because the Bible most certainly does teach that.

The teachings of the Church are expressed in official Church doctrines, such as the Catechism. As for the bible, it just depends on which part you read and/or how you interpret it. But that is why the authority of the Church takes precedence over the bible.

So you're saying the church believes the bible or at least parts of it, to be wrong.
[/quote]

I would not say "wrong" is necessarily the right word. But we do recognize that it is not infallible Church Doctrine. It was written thousands of years ago and can be interpreted many different ways, and for that reason can't be considered "fool proof".

[*Deidre*]

When I was an atheist, it seemed at that time just a natural conclusion that I came to. It isn't something people can convince you of, just like faith. I can't really 'talk someone into' believing in God. Just my opinion, anyways.

[Whateverist]

I would not say "wrong" is necessarily the right word. But we do recognize that it is not infallible Church Doctrine. It was written thousands of years ago and can be interpreted many different ways, and for that reason can't be considered "fool proof".

This just in: "wrong" is wrong.

[chimp3]

Don't worry, I'm going to stick around at least until I feel like I've made a genuine conclusion about the existence of God.

Currently I've been looking a little more into why Christians believe in God (I've seen some ideas about how God could be a manifestation of our own ego, for example) to gain some perspective before I look into the ontological/teleological/etc. arguments.

When you do look into ontological \ teleological arguments take a moment to consider how they could also be a manifestation of our own ego.

[Angrboda]

I mean after you have a "heretic" like Pope Honorious, or require reversals like Pope Zosimus reversing he predecessors pronouncements, how do you honestly believe that what the current pope is saying is truth and you won't be damned for following it by some future pope? [3]

3) There is a difference between material heresy (unknowingly believing something that is heretical) and formal heresy (knowingly believing something that is heretical, and publically teaching said heresy in spite of ecclesial requests to stop). There is a difference between every-day things the Pope says (non-infallible personal remarks and correspondence and interviews) and very specific things he says for the purpose of teaching (non-infallible magisterial teaching like exhortations, encyclicals, apostolic letters, etc.) and very specific things he says for the purpose of solemnly and finally defining a dogma/aspect of a dogma (infallible ex-cathedra pronouncements).

Pope Honorius may have been a material heretic. That is not a problem. Almost every Catholic is probably a material heretic in some way (i.e. there is probably something we think in good-faith that the Church teaches, but we are actually wrong about). He never, however, solemnly defined his material heresy as a dogma. If he had done that, then you would have a point.

This seems duplicitous. I'm told that Catholocism is not a religion of the book, but that the church and its traditions are the highest authority. What does it mean to say that something is true according to the highest authority on earth, yet that the teaching is fallible? It seems you are making a difference that makes no difference. Whatever the latest pronouncement of the church is becomes infallible for that time. It sounds like you want to have your cake (the church being authoritative) and eat it, too (the church only being relatively authoritative). Regardless of ex cathedra pronouncements being placed in a different "category," they have no more effect than the fallible proclamations of the church, and to claim that they are different thereby seems like nothing more than a game of words. If the church is wrong on a matter, it is wrong authoritatively, and this business about fallibility does little to alter the true impact of the church's pronouncements. Fallibly wrong with the highest authority is "practically" indistinguishable from infallible. The weight of the church resting upon any pronouncement is the same.

[Mystical]

Q: if unborn babies are "with God", then when did they get to practice their free will? What if they didnt agree with said god and chose Satan's side with the other 1/3 of the angels?

---

Don't worry, I'm going to stick around at least until I feel like I've made a genuine conclusion about the existence of God.

Currently I've been looking a little more into why Christians believe in God (I've seen some ideas about how God could be a manifestation of our own ego, for example) to gain some perspective before I look into the ontological/teleological/etc. arguments.

Hopefully you'll stick around longer than that, whatever your decision. Just my opinion.

[robvalue]

Don't worry, I'm going to stick around at least until I feel like I've made a genuine conclusion about the existence of God.

Currently I've been looking a little more into why Christians believe in God (I've seen some ideas about how God could be a manifestation of our own ego, for example) to gain some perspective before I look into the ontological/teleological/etc. arguments.

Good to see you're still here

The question of a genetic creator is very different to a specific, interested intervening one. The existence of the first isn't even worth worrying about in my opinion. Is this reality created or not? It's all the same stuff either way. How does it change anything? We just have to get on with things as best we can.

It's pretty easy to show that the "personal" gods people think they have relationships with are almost certainly not all one particular being: this god generally agrees with everyone about morality, and the specifics of our origins and destiny, while people disagree with each other. If this is a single being, the best thing you can say is that it's failing to communicate so badly that you can come to virtually any conclusion. This doesn't fit with the level of intimacy and certainty people tend to describe.

So this seems to suggest there's a distinct interventionist God for each person, who happens to agree with them and acts in their interest. Or more reasonably, these things exist only in the mind. The placebo effect and confirmation bias are incredibly powerful, and can reinforce pretty much any strongly held belief even in the absence of any evidence. I'd suggest investigating these more.

[mihoda]

Currently I've been looking a little more into why Christians believe in God (I've seen some ideas about how God could be a manifestation of our own ego, for example) to gain some perspective before I look into the ontological/teleological/etc. arguments.

Ah, you see. That right there is a tell that there's no there there.  When people have dozens, no, millions, of different descriptions of a thing, there's no thing there.  It becomes obvious from the different descriptions that more than one of them *could not* have direct experience with the thing in question. And therefore multiple stories are a dead giveaway for a lack of evidence.

[Pat Mustard]

No one can know for sure, but we believe since the baby is an innocent child he is with God. As for the moms who have abortions, I'm sure it depends on a lot and is taken on a case by case basis, just like with everyone/everything else.

You are SURE? or you HOPE?

But if all those babies are in heaven, god must purchase a lot of pampers

Up until very recently catholic bullshittery had babies who died befor being baptised going to limbo and not heaven (I was being taught this as recently as the 90s). The church did the reverse ferret on this one because it was causing too many people to lose their irrational belief.

Of course it also nixed one of the few rationalisations the church had for banning abortions in the 1860s.