M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
Around 15:00 she mentions that her now-husband in talking about his full body baptism encountered something that caused him to remain a theist. I would never deny that he truly experienced Jesus, but as an outsider I would also point out that there are those of a decidedly non-Christian faith who also feel they have encountered something beyond the physical.
Around 19:00 she says she looked at her newborn son and tried to assess what he was. She used the phrase “isn’t he a precious little randomly evolved set of chemical reactions that is destined to extinction along with the rest of humanity?” Like I saidm there are great many different atheists out there, but I know of none who actually talk like that. You know who talks like that? Atheists in those PureFlix movies. This interview is getting embarrassing.
Around 19:30 she said that she knew at that time that the love she had for he son came from something extrnal to humanity. I would strongly disagree with that, but I certainly wouldn’t fault her for having that opinion.
Around 21:00 she said she was an athiest that didn’t believe in anything but later love as an extrnal are real thing is something she wanted to believe in. After that she said that she remember being surrounded by Christians and that she at the time felt they were that way because they couldn’t face the real world, but then after her epiphany with love that she was becoming one of them. Again, I don’t fault her for taking her religious position, but it seems like a false dichotomy: That you can only experience love if you believe it comes from a higher power, and that if you don’t believe in a higher power love isn’t real.
Around 25:00 she talks about reading some writings and talking about the changes that occurred in 1st century Palestine and how the simplest explanation was that the Bible was true. While she and others find it convincing – and it is something to consider, non-believers like myself would point out how just because something grabs hold of a culture doesn’t mean that something is true. The simplest rule when considering any apologetic is to determine if there is a parallel in another faith.
I stopped at 32:00 since at that point it was about why Catholicism over other Christian denominations. She said that she handpicked a group of Christians from her blog that could (allegedly) demolish all atheist arguments and was surprised to find they were all Catholic.
So as far as “what do you think of this conversion from Atheism?” She had a major experience (the birth of her son) which made her assess her place in the universe. From there she chose Catholicism based on the knowledge of its participants. I’ve always said that reasonable people can see the same evidence (especially on something unprovable/unfalsifiable like religion) and come to different conclusion. If she decides that atheist is wanting, so be it. I just wish she told her tell with a bit less false witness as to the whole of atheism.
Around 19:00 she says she looked at her newborn son and tried to assess what he was. She used the phrase “isn’t he a precious little randomly evolved set of chemical reactions that is destined to extinction along with the rest of humanity?” Like I saidm there are great many different atheists out there, but I know of none who actually talk like that. You know who talks like that? Atheists in those PureFlix movies. This interview is getting embarrassing.
Around 19:30 she said that she knew at that time that the love she had for he son came from something extrnal to humanity. I would strongly disagree with that, but I certainly wouldn’t fault her for having that opinion.
Around 21:00 she said she was an athiest that didn’t believe in anything but later love as an extrnal are real thing is something she wanted to believe in. After that she said that she remember being surrounded by Christians and that she at the time felt they were that way because they couldn’t face the real world, but then after her epiphany with love that she was becoming one of them. Again, I don’t fault her for taking her religious position, but it seems like a false dichotomy: That you can only experience love if you believe it comes from a higher power, and that if you don’t believe in a higher power love isn’t real.
Around 25:00 she talks about reading some writings and talking about the changes that occurred in 1st century Palestine and how the simplest explanation was that the Bible was true. While she and others find it convincing – and it is something to consider, non-believers like myself would point out how just because something grabs hold of a culture doesn’t mean that something is true. The simplest rule when considering any apologetic is to determine if there is a parallel in another faith.
I stopped at 32:00 since at that point it was about why Catholicism over other Christian denominations. She said that she handpicked a group of Christians from her blog that could (allegedly) demolish all atheist arguments and was surprised to find they were all Catholic.
So as far as “what do you think of this conversion from Atheism?” She had a major experience (the birth of her son) which made her assess her place in the universe. From there she chose Catholicism based on the knowledge of its participants. I’ve always said that reasonable people can see the same evidence (especially on something unprovable/unfalsifiable like religion) and come to different conclusion. If she decides that atheist is wanting, so be it. I just wish she told her tell with a bit less false witness as to the whole of atheism.