Yeah, Calvinists.
PS, you’re the one that declared some Christians to not be “true Christians” . . . maybe you shouldn’t do that if you don’t want to have to defend the claim.
One can assert, or assume, that not everyone who calls themself a Christian truly is one, without specifying exactly who is and is not or what the precise definition is.
The way I read her apologia, atheism = woke = appeasement to the evil that threatens good in the world.
Not at all a new or unique idea. After WWII, there was a movement to return to Christianity to repair all the damage done by Godless Godless Nazism and to stand against Godless Communism. (But this new Christianity suddenly accepted internal appeasement: ecumenical, its forces combined, the religious bloodbath of the 15th thru 17th centuries not at all having laid the foundation for that of the 20th).
One of its loudest proponents was Malcolm Muggeridge. He’d seen the worst of Stalinism during the 30s: risked his neck to get a firsthand view. During WWII he liaised with the Free French and saw what the Nazis did too. So his religious reawakening was understandable. But not rational. He’s remembered for scolding Monty Python for making The Life of Brian, championing Mother Theresa without journalistic scrutiny, and overall embarrassing himself.
So who is the best defender of good against evil in our world? It’s not just a war of ideas, snowflakes, so we need to gird our loins with the sword of Charles Martel, or the AR-15 of the Idaho Christian Nationalists. The evil if the world is an unreasoning force, so to oppose it with reason instead of faith just won’t do the job. I can’t explain how that’s supposed to work. You just have to take it on faith.
Can you? The phrase “true Christian” can mean at least two very different things. Do you mean, a person who is truly following Christ, or do you mean a person who believes in the same denomination/dogma as you? I was raised in a pentecostal church. A Catholic, no matter how closely they followed the teachings of Christ, was not considered a “true Christian.” I think if you are going to use that term, you should be expected to define what you mean by it.
Read a Gospel book, maybe Luke, because it contains the story of Christ. It contains the things he said and the things he did. THAT is what I mean. I don’t believe in human dogma and have no use for it in my life.
There are hundreds of Christian denominations, including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormans, Jevohahs Witnesses, etc. They all read the Gospels. Many of their teachings contradict one another. How would I know which one is the True Christianity? And do I nedd to stick to just the Gospels, or does the whole Bible count? Which Bible should I use, because again many dont agree with each other?
Since you apparently missed this …
Didnt miss it, it just doesnt actually answer a single question.
Actually raises an interesting one. If one doesn’t believe in human dogma then what species was Luke?
You might consider the other very real possibility that you simply don’t understand the answer.
Back on the thread subject …
Indeed. One wonders if the upbringing conditioning was at work here - for all the talk about respect for “peoples of the book” Islam’s hardliners condemn ANY apostasy so fiercely that in her mind the logical step would be “might as well go all the way”. But after a couple of decades immersed in the Western culture, she becomes more willing to satisfy the need for that religious dimension with the religious tradition that prevails in this cultural sphere.
And that can also be a matter of external or internal intangibles, that in someone’s opinion may be a mistaken conclusion but it’s not just coming out of nowhere.
…
And really, if someone now wants to say “but that is WRONG” then fine. Do we have to constantly be making sure the other guy doesn’t have the last word? And do we have to phrase it in the form of a challenge question so it makes them look like they are conceding when they don’t answer or answer something we do not accept? 
I used to be an avid stamp collector. Then, I tried to find meaning in not collecting stamps, but that was unsatisfactory. Now, I’m an avid doll collector.
The idea of trying to find meaning and answers in atheism is weird. It’s like trying to find meaning in not collecting stamps.
I can quite agree that I don’t understand your answer. You asserted that you believe AHA converted due to the influence of “true Christians.” I have no comment on that assertion, other than I dont know what you mean by “true Christians”.
You replied that a true Christian reads the gospel of Luke. I assume you mean all the gospels, but if I have that wrong, please let me know. I have read the gospels, no fewer than 10 times. I assure you, I am not a true Christian.
If you mean someone that follows Christ’s teachings in the gospels, then fine. But that means very, very different things for different people. If you mean the differences don’t matter, then fine, but I think your definition of true Christian is very different than many. Few Baptist would call a Morman a true Christian and vice versa. It doesnt matter that your definition is different, but dont pretend that true Christian has some universal or well understood meaning.
You sure the CEO isn’t just a fan of the Blues Brothers?
It does seem that once a person has embraced one major ‘conversion’, they are more likely to undergo another.
In her case it seems that she wanted atheism to be a sort of ‘pseudo religion’, but ultimately found it unsatisfying?
I think it was directed at me. I said that I don’t believe in a literal resurrection, but I identify as Christian. My views are probably in line with a lot of folks in Mainline Protestant seminaries. as well as plenty of Christian clergy. If anyone says that makes me not Christian, fine. I don’t identify that way because I’m afraid of eternal damnation.
In a way I think she has a point but has reached the wrong conclusion.
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.” -(W B Yeats)
Those of us who wish to live in a tolerant society need to take our heads out of the sand and realize that there is, like it or not, a war on. Fundementalists (of several different types) want to impose their standards of control on everyone.
If we don’t take a stand against that, we will have ‘tolerated’ ourselves out of existence.
But I don’t think aligning oneself with a particular religion is the best plan?