I heard this guy on NPR, and I feel like all things aside the guy is reasonable. I mean, I do feel iffy about the part about him saying if he lost a son his faith wouldn't waver but then he didn't explicitly say anything crediting god with proactively saving his son so I feel that most of what he said was just an important part of the story and not plug for religion, and I don't feel that he is being all that intrusive about it. Though it seems the guy hinted at miraculousness in the story, it seems it was a small hint and wouldn't warrant the "you think you had a miracle when so many people died" sort of thing.
I would like a second, or third, or fiftieth opinion. He just doesn't seem like the type of person I would want to argue with cause, again I don't find him intrusive, just saying what happened. What do you guys think?
I'm not sure if you're talking about an argument over a miracle or that god had something to do with it, so I'll address both. I think he did have a miracle. I mean, god had nothing to do with it, but it's a miracle all the same. Especially considering how many people died.
As for whether or not it's worth arguing about god's existence or lack there of with him, I don't think it is. This is just my opinion, but I personally feel we need to pick and choose our battles. When religion or religious beliefs are being harmful, then we (again, this is just what I feel) should, if possible, step in and say something. But in instances like this where it's acting as a crutch to help a person deal with a difficult situation or as a good guiding force, it's just not worth looking like a**holes. Maybe one day we could have a discussion about god's existence with someone like that person, but at least at the moment, I don't feel it's worth it. Atheists/agnostics/etc. get a bad enough rep. amongst most people simply without intruding on occasions like this where someone is just happy that they survived a disaster with all of their loved ones.