In my opinion the second best chance op has of coming to our point of view is to have discussions with the Catholic apostates on this board. I am a Protestant apostate, and the arguments that worked best on a fundamentalist like me will be less effective if I tried to use them on you.
You may have seen examples of religion that were very similar to Christianity and which arose long before Jesuit missionaries arrived.
Some Christians claim this is proof they’re worshiping the same God imperfectly, which is the confirmation bias of believing one thing first (your God is the right one and their are wrong) and then applying that when you try to convert people, you tell them their Goddesses or Buddhas if they provide spirituality are just them connecting with your God. Of course, I have never had a satisfactory answer as to why God took so long to tell them about Christianity if is the true religion that he wanted us all to follow.
I’m starting to think the best way to debate a Catholic on the truth of their doctrine is to question hard these things that make up their doctrine:
1) the plausibility of miracles the Catholic church approves of including that in 700 AD a priest had wine turn to blood, and bread into human flesh in his mouth,
2) generally crazy Catholic dogma that you don’t see in the protestant denominations since they did a better job of weeding out what has no basis in the bible
3) questioning the integrity of the Catholic church while likening it to a cult with examples
4) asking how they think the pope is so divine given the history of abuses of power by Popes, and changes of positions on issues, such as that people should use the missionary position, or vatican ii destroying their traditions.
5) questioning the basis of moral relavitism vs say, switching to Protestant.
What interests me is the arguments that work with me are less effective on Catholics, because some of them are similar to the arguments Protestants use and which the Catholic apologetics have written widely disseminated arguments for. Namely a contradiction in the bible would upset a Protestant that believes in sola scriptura and the holiness and perfection of the bible, but Catholics shrug it off which baffles me. I still don’t understand how Catholics can continue to believe in something once they’re educated on seeing flaws and contradictions without, suffering the huge cognitive dissonance; these inconsistancies in the holy word led me to question the existence of the Hebrew God, and upon rationally deciding there was no evidence and a very slim probability that Christianity of all religions was right without evidence, I had to lay my religion down to rest.
If you are interested in what led me away, there are many websites by apostates that challenge you to read two passages of the bible for yourself to see contradictions: as Mark Twain put it, “the bible is a collection of upwards of a thousand lies.” You don’t have to study diligently to find them yourself when others have done it for millienum. Catholics shrug off the biblical contradictions when they say the bible is imperfectly written by man, which might be an example of the Scottsman fallacy. At the same time they believe in doctrines that aren’t in the bible, and that have changed when necessary over the millenium. That is which is why I think a Catholic apostate would focus on the elusive snake of moral relavatism and the corruptibility of a church that is supposed to be led by God’s own man.
(I now believe it’s nearly futile to seriously debate them. They are too crazy and ignorant. My thread where I argued with a guy for a few weeks on a game forum proved that.)