stupid_pun

I'm guessing you were not an atheist for logical or evidence based reasons then?

edit: Also I am curious what you mean by 'militant.' I have personally not met or seen atheists that proposed violence or creating militias to advance the position of atheism.

(or, more accurately, I thought there was insufficient evidence for theism)

That is my current stance, and in my mind the only logical one that exists. What empirical evidence have you encountered that has changed your mind?

I don't mean to nitpick semantics, I just don't like the term militant atheist. It has always felt like religious projection to me considering actual atheistic 'ideologically' motivated violence is rare, if it even exists, which cannot be said for religions, Catholicism in particular.

What empirical evidence have you encountered that has changed your mind?

I realize I'm likely getting downvoted for my pet peeve about the term militant, but I really am curious if there was any actual empirical evidence that changed your mind, or if your beliefs now are based more on what is comfortable as a worldview? Not to be argumentative, just genuinely curious.

why is empiricism the only valid source of knowledge?

I don't believe I said that. But in the case of making claims about the supernatural in any context, without any empirical evidence to test, there is not really any differentiating between which claims are true and which are false. In OP's case, I was curious if there is any particular reason he chose catholicism over other religions, aside from the usual regional factors or personal faith/turned life around anecdotes.