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

[Fake Messiah]

I've discussed this in a different thread. Read my responses here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-45905-page-6.html

Particularly post 56.

---

^Edited because I posted the wrong link lol.

OK, CL so you basically compare unbaptized stillborn babies and fetuses to people of other religion, that can apparently go to Heaven if they somehow live according to Catholic rules and have some sort of desire for baptism. But I just looked at Vatican's pages under document called "The Hope Of Salvation For Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised" and even they don't seem to agree with you:

During the 20th century, some theologians, developing certain more ancient theological theses, proposed to recognize for little children either some kind of Baptism of blood (by taking into consideration the suffering and death of these infants), or some kind of Baptism of desire (by invoking an “unconscious desire” for Baptism in these infants oriented toward justification, or the desire of the Church).[58] The proposals invoking some kind of Baptism of desire or Baptism of blood, however, involved certain difficulties.
On the one hand, the adult's act of desire for Baptism can hardly be attributed to children. The little child is scarcely capable of supplying the fully free and responsible personal act which would constitute a substitution for sacramental Baptism; such a fully free and responsible act is rooted in a judgement of reason and cannot be properly achieved before the human person has reached a sufficient or appropriate use of reason (aetas discretionis: “age of discretion”). That is why Pope Pius XII, recalling the importance of sacramental Baptism, explained in the “Allocution to Italian Midwives” in 1951: “The state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open”.

Granted the whole document is the usual magical mumbo jumbo, they sometime want to instill some hope, like the continuation:

On the other hand, it is difficult to understand how the Church could properly “supply” for unbaptised infants. The case of sacramental Baptism, instead, is quite different because sacramental Baptism, administered to infants, obtains grace in virtue of that which is specifically proper to the sacrament as such, that is, the certain gift of regeneration by the power of Christ himself.

And it goes back and forth, but the truth is it it's like they're trying on a polite way to say "They don't go to heaven". Which is especially visible in the ending (the conclusion) where they admit they simply don't know:

we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ts_en.html

This is something that I tried to explain: if Jesus was real God why kill himself? Why not stay for few decades and actually clarify these and many other things.

[Catholic_Lady]

Um, are we reading the same thing? Lol.

Nothing you posted is contradictory to what I've been saying, and I don't understand why you said "they're trying on a polite way to say "They don't go to heaven"", when the thing you posted specifically says we have every reason to be hopeful that they DO.

Bottom line is exactly as I said earlier on in this thread, FM: The Church can't claim to know what happens to the souls of anyone except canonized Saints. But we have every reason to hope that unborn/unbaptized babies do go to Heaven. And it is the general consensus among Catholics that they do. As the CCC says, even in Church funeral services for babies who died before baptism, the priest says "we entrust ______ to the mercy of God."

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

-CCC

[AceBoogie]

I know that, and depending on the atheist or theist perspective, the response to that would be that it's a test of faith (which I've seen conflicting views about), or simply that God isn't real.

So... god created us with brains that would logically tell us that he does not exist to test our faith in his existence? Which means god wants us to go against our own reason and logic and blindly follow his word? Would he want us to treat anything else with the same type of blind ignorance or loyalty? Would a loving god want us to just blindly follow anything because a claim is made by someone that doing so makes us better somehow?

I've been looking into that and need to see how theist justifications hold up logically.

Why would a book that is supposed to be the perfect and infallible word of god have any contradictions or fallacies in it? What justification can there be for that?

Earlier religions seem to have spawned to try to provide an answer to "supernatural" things that were actually natural but had a lack of evidence. Which is why they're easily disregarded.

Christianity seems to have so many different branches due to a mix of miscommunicated information and differing interpretations. Yet it's still relevant today, as it manages to adapt and provides justifications for supernatural events that "technically" can't be fully disproven (regardless of they're actually rational justifications). 

I definitely can see how all this can work against religion.

So the earlier a religion was founded the more invalid its tenets and ideas? So Scientology is one of the most, if not THE most accurate religions of all time?

And does the fact that Christianity is composed of so many different denominations somehow make it more accurate because it has "survived" all of this miscommunication and error? Why would a god allow us to come up with so many incorrect interpretations of one holy, infallible book? Does that make sense to you?

From my understanding, it's seen as a test to help them grow stronger in a sense. If God isn't real, that also explains why they don't get healed, so I guess the "right" answer depends on whether God is actually real.

So your god has to allow someone to lose a limb before allowing them to grow as a person? Why couldn't god just have injected some other type of extreme circumstance in their life that would allow them to grow or change as a person?

A consequence of free will, or because there is no God. Again, the answer to that depends on whether God is real.

So god allows us the free will to be evil? So does that mean that god does not intervene or perform miracles? Is fate predetermined? If so how can we have free will if our fates are predetermined? What about hurricanes or other natural disasters that wipe out thousands of people at a time... Are those the result of free will? Are those things caused by god? If so... does that not mean that god is cruel?

I was raised in the faith, and never questioned it until now (which I realize is common among theists).

So you are a Christian for no reason other than because your parents were Christians?

By the logic of the above two, probably. Which is another reason why I feel like I need to actually question my faith rather than blindly accepting what I was born into.

So then what gives Christianity any more validity than Islam? Don't you think that Muslims feel just as strongly about their beliefs as Christians do? Who is right?

To be completely clear, I am just trying to walk you through these questions. You are well on your way to discovering that you are an atheist, trust me. But you have to follow all of these questions through because otherwise you will be thwarted by simple, yet deceptive tactics that many theists use to just brush these questions off and act like they don't exist. Keep following these questions through. Keep searching for more and more answers. If your god is real, surely he will bring you to the conclusion that he does, in fact, exist.

[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?

---

I swear I've never had anyone answer or even acknowledge this question. 

[Catholic_Lady]

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?

---

I swear I've never had anyone answer or even acknowledge this question. 

Sorry, I honestly did not see that question. I've thought of it myself a lot too, actually. 

This is just my opinion, since we know very little about the afterlife and how it works. 

I think everyone still has their free will when they move on to the next life. Including people who died while they were still babies. My theory is that after people die and see God for themselves, they can have the free will to either humble themselves before Him or reject Him. Heaven is the state of acceptance, Hell is that of rejection. I think anyone who dies while they are very young will always choose the former. Think about little children and how they are for a minute. The hearts of children tend to be naturally "pure" and good. Perhaps because they haven't been around this world long enough to harden their hearts and establish any sort of greed or immoral habits yet. Whatever the reason is, children and babies just have a certain humility and purity to them that gets carried over to the next life.

[Mystical]

I swear I've never had anyone answer or even acknowledge this question. 

Sorry, I honestly did not see that question. I've thought of it myself a lot too, actually. 

This is just my opinion, since we know very little about the afterlife and how it works. 

I think everyone still has their free will when they move on to the next life. Including people who died while they were still babies. My theory is that after people die and see God for themselves, they can have the free will to either humble themselves before Him or reject Him. Heaven is the state of acceptance, Hell is that of rejection. I think anyone who dies while they are very young will always choose the former. Think about little children and how they are for a minute. The hearts of children tend to be naturally "pure" and good. Perhaps because they haven't been around this world long enough to harden their hearts and establish any sort of greed or immoral habits yet. Whatever the reason is, children and babies just have a certain humility and purity to them that gets carried over to the next life.

 Aw thanks for responding! I was just being a complainey bunny, really..

I can't comment on your personal beliefs about the afterlife pertaining to theology since it's yours and not the church's. I think your conclusion on what the church believes is accurate; they just don't know. Considering they are renowned for having a definitive opinion on just about everything, I wouldn't find this answer satisfactory. It's important, and prevalent on many mother and fathers minds.

But about babies being innocent... um... have you ever hung out with one?
Or do you have some age limit in your head that draws the line betweem innocent and not?







[url= https://youtu.be/Og9UC_eXGs8][/url]

[Ben Davis]

I've seen that video here before on a number of occasions, and to me it's just silly. No offense Ben.

We're all entitled to our opinions  

It's making stereotypes and assumptions about all people of faith.

I'm surprised you see it that way. It's tackling one specific response of theists to atheism, that atheists are rejecting deities. It does a very good job of illustrating that the 'rejection' response is a key indicator that deities are expressions of ego rather than of any supernatural entity. It doesn't make any claim that all theists respond this way neither does it try to put words in theists mouths as 'rejection' claims are commonplace, across many religions, albeit not universal. Where do you see the stereotypes and assumptions?

I for one, don't care in the least if someone doesn't have the same views on religion/God as I do. Obviously I think it's a good thing if someone does, because I believe it's the truth, but I most certainly don't feel personally offended by it if they don't. Believe what you want lol.

Of course, I agree that people should be free to believe what they want, I just disagree that religious beliefs are a good thing. Maybe if I shared your view, my life would be less stressful  

So to me, watching this video is like, "Eye roll, these folks are way off and making the assumption that we're all immature, shallow, and stupid. How typical."

I think that might be a bit of you seeing what you want rather than seeing what's there; that sometimes happens as a defense mechanism. Then again, I'm willing to admit that the bias may be at my end. If it is, I'd seek to root it out. What do you think?  

Ironically enough I've seen more people here who have felt angry that I believe in God than I personally feel towards those who don't.

For me, I don't know about angry, more condescendingly disappointed  

But seriously, I hope you understand why it's reasonably common for atheists to feel anger towards religious beliefs (and by association, sometimes those who hold them) and why that isn't common in reverse. I think you've been here long enough to have heard many different explanations.

[Catholic_Lady]

I've seen that video here before on a number of occasions, and to me it's just silly. No offense Ben.

We're all entitled to our opinions  

It's making stereotypes and assumptions about all people of faith.

I'm surprised you see it that way. It's tackling one specific response of theists to atheism, that atheists are rejecting deities. It does a very good job of illustrating that the 'rejection' response is a key indicator that deities are expressions of ego rather than of any supernatural entity. It doesn't make any claim that all theists respond this way neither does it try to put words in theists mouths as 'rejection' claims are commonplace, across many religions, albeit not universal. Where do you see the stereotypes and assumptions?

I for one, don't care in the least if someone doesn't have the same views on religion/God as I do. Obviously I think it's a good thing if someone does, because I believe it's the truth, but I most certainly don't feel personally offended by it if they don't. Believe what you want lol.

Of course, I agree that people should be free to believe what they want, I just disagree that religious beliefs are a good thing. Maybe if I shared your view, my life would be less stressful  

So to me, watching this video is like, "Eye roll, these folks are way off and making the assumption that we're all immature, shallow, and stupid. How typical."

I think that might be a bit of you seeing what you want rather than seeing what's there; that sometimes happens as a defense mechanism. Then again, I'm willing to admit that the bias may be at my end. If it is, I'd seek to root it out. What do you think?  

Ironically enough I've seen more people here who have felt angry that I believe in God than I personally feel towards those who don't.

For me, I don't know about angry, more condescendingly disappointed  

But seriously, I hope you understand why it's reasonably common for atheists to feel anger towards religious beliefs (and by association, sometimes those who hold them) and why that isn't common in reverse. I think you've been here long enough to have heard many different explanations.

What I got from the video is this:

Theists feel personally offended when atheists don't agree with them about their religion. Therefore a theist's religion is merely an expression of their own ego. 

^That's what I was objecting to. If that's not what the video is claiming, then I stand corrected.

[AceBoogie]

a theist's religion is merely an expression of their own ego. 

I isolated and bolded this because I truly think god is just an expression of oneself. One's interpretation of religion is also an expression of oneself. It's interesting how we as humans relate to the world we relate everyone and everything to ourselves without even realizing it. When you 'feel' god I truly believe you are feeling your 'higher self' if you want to call it that.
God, the voice in your head, is simply another idealized version of you as a perfect, moral, loving being.

[Catholic_Lady]

a theist's religion is merely an expression of their own ego. 

I isolated and bolded this because I truly think god is just an expression of oneself. One's interpretation of religion is also an expression of oneself. It's interesting how we as humans relate to the world we relate everyone and everything to ourselves without even realizing it. When you 'feel' god I truly believe you are feeling your 'higher self' if you want to call it that.
God, the voice in your head, is simply another idealized version of you as a perfect, moral, loving being.

This sounds an awful lot like "wait but why." Does that sound familiar?