" I just converted to Catholicism. Here’s my story. "
About two weeks ago, Joe Schmid of the philosophy channel ‘Majesty of Reason’ (long regarded as agnostic-leaning) announced that he has converted to Catholicism. In his video he walks through the reasons that led him to this decision.
Do you find his reasons convincing?
Why don’t you tell us what, if anything YOU find interesting/convincing?
Or, why it is not convincing or realistic?
This is a debate forum not a video critique forum.
Welcome to Atheist Republic Forum.
Seconded. In addition, I am out travelling internationally, so I am not under any circumstances going to spend precious mobile data for a video I don’t even know what is about our how long it is. If you want comments, please sum it up in your own words. As is common courtesy around here.
What were his reasons? Pick the most compelling if you like, and we can take a look. TBH if he’s found new reasons we’ve never seen before I’d be surprised, but I will keep an open mind.
I have no real interest in watching a near 30 minute video, that likely just contains personal subjective religious beliefs. If he’s found any objective evidence that supports Catholicism, it’d be on every news channel by now.
He, Joseph (Joe) Schmid, was also raised a Catholic, according to National Catholic Register HERE, but lost his beliefs in high school, and has now gone back to Catholicism.
Here is a very edifying extract from that link:
he said a “huge confluence of factors” convinced him of the truth of the Catholic faith “on an intellectual level.” Chief among them are the “vindicatory miracles,” or “miracles wrought by God in confirmation of distinctive Catholic doctrines.”
So firstly miracles have never been, indeed cannot by definition be, objectively evidenced, strike one for me, and of course a miracle is at best a claim for an event that (currently) defies natural or scientific explanation, it isn’t in and of itself evidence for anything, just an appeal to mystery, even were I to accept the claim as accurate and the claim it lacked (currently) any scientific or natural explanation, and (the claimed event) contradicted known natural and scientific law, this still isn’t objective evidence of a deity, why would anyone think this other than bias?
He cited the charisms of Padre Pio, the healing miracles at Lourdes, the apparitions of Our Lady of Fátima, Eucharistic miracles, “and much more besides.”
I can cite similar claims for sightings of mermaids, except unlike the “miracles” claimed at Lourdes, these haven’t been falsified by the data.
“I converted after a long process of working through my many objections to Catholicism
I have only one objection, and it is the same for all claims, including god claims, there is no objective evidence to support the claim any deity exists.
“God is good,” he told his viewers.
An entirely unevidenced and subjective opinion.
Speaking to his own viewers when announcing his conversion, Schmid said he has significant plans to continue his YouTube channel in service to Catholicism, and “we will see where the Lord takes me.”
Unless the lord takes him to something approaching objectively verifiable evidence, I shan’t be joining him.
You list yourself as agnostic. Do you find his reasons convincing?
Another drive by then, just to be safe I’ve been monitoring the major global news networks, nothing about any deity being evidenced so far. 
Even the Catholic Herald remains reticent, whatever could this all mean?
His “argument” is that he believes in miracle faith healing lies.
You have to marvel that he ever left the “faith”, I mean if you can delude yourself that unevidenced magic exists, WTAF I wonder, were his “objections” to Catholicism in the first place?
I agree with all my fellow atheists about this questioner!
As this topic has not been addressed by the original poster this topic is locked.