The curious case of Sarah Salviander.

[Jehanne]

---

She's intelligent, attractive, highly educated, successful, gainfully employed, and happily married, the epitome of modern success in the Western World:



She's said that her Mom & Dad were ex-Catholics (like me), who (de)converted to atheism; she said that she was raised as an atheist, but while in college, discovered some sort of generic theism, and after falling in love with a Christian man from Finland who was raised in an atheistic home, she gave her life to Jesus.  Now, she has two websites:

https://sarahsalviander.com/

And, especially:

https://sixdayscience.com/

Two seeks ago I sent an email to her "six days" science website after noticing links to WLC's RF site:



I never received a reply and didn't really expect one.  "James", by the way, is an ex-Christian, now atheist, who was critical of Sarah's conversion to Christianity.  His blog site "Reasonably Faithless" can be found online; if you read Sarah's post, she has a bit of a temper to her disposition!

Apparently, some other "fire breathing atheists" from UT (the home of Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg) have converted, also:

http://www.facultycommons.com/exploding-myths/

Kind of reminds me of Dan Barker, but in reverse.  What's going on with these people?

---

Why are you so surprised?   You might pontificate, that there are more stories out there like this, then you may be aware of.

Also, just for consideration, but the message you sent may come off as trolling....  You are not really asking a question or making any argument against anything that what said in the context of the site or their position, but bringing up something unrelated about another.  (not to mention, that I think that the clip and argument about Craig, are lacking in the principle of charity, to understand what he is actually putting forth).

A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.

I did ask a question (which is appropriate to the "Atheism" subforum of this board, namely, "If you want to discuss atheism in general, this forum is the place to be!"), which is, " What's going on with these people?"

---

I don't think he's trolling. I think he is genuinely dumbfounded that anyone who doesn't think like him could possibly be anything other than ugly, stupid, and a loser in life. There's a word for that.

Just to clarify, that part was just directed to the message sent to "SixDay Science", and why a reply wasn't received.

I didn't really expect a reply.  If you look further on their website, all correspondence is theirs to do with as they please (i.e., "publish angry diatribes from atheists," etc.)  I would certainly welcome a reply, namely, one along the lines of why a professional astrophysicist would link to a man such as WLC, who called the number zero "very problematic".

---

Why are you so surprised?   You might pontificate, that there are more stories out there like this, then you may be aware of.

Also, just for consideration, but the message you sent may come off as trolling....  You are not really asking a question or making any argument against anything that what said in the context of the site or their position, but bringing up something unrelated about another.  (not to mention, that I think that the clip and argument about Craig, are lacking in the principle of charity, to understand what he is actually putting forth).

I don't think he's trolling. I think he is genuinely dumbfounded that anyone who doesn't think like him could possibly be anything other than ugly, stupid, and a loser in life. There's a word for that.

Bless your (nonexistent) soul, CL!  By the way, Sir Peter Millican, whom Craig debated back in 2011, now an atheistic philosophy professor at Oxford, was himself a former believer, as am I.

---

Lets face it, some people are just happier with religion in their life. We don't have to understand it/them or even like it/them. We do have to acknowledge that it/they exist.

That's the wonder of warm fuzzy delusions.

You're probably right, which is why individuals, such as Dr. Salviander, are only willing to dialogue with "believers", such as themselves.