Simone Weil's weird take on religious belief

So unlike most Christian apologists who generally argue under Reason 2 or less commonly under Reason 3, she actually argues for atheism up to the point where one can no longer be an atheist which is when one has a personal communication with God.

Note that she doesn't argue that one ought to believe because people claim to have had religious experiences (such reasoning would fall under the first 3 reasons which she rejects). She doesn't even argue that having a religious experience of your own means that logically the transcendent must exist. All she argues is when you have one, you will find it impossible to be an atheist, even if all logic suggests you ought to be. Your belief is therefore justified by the impossibility of denying it.

True believers like herself (she had a religious experience at the age of 28) therefore have more in common with atheists than the vast majority of theists - both true believers and atheists have justified beliefs, while the other theists have unjustified beliefs.

Oddly therefore one could completely accept her argument while still being justified in one's atheism. 

Any thoughts on this?