It's been a long time since I've formally addressed my fellow Knights, and for that, I apologize.
First and foremost, I'd like to ask if throughout the readings in Blackford's "50 Voices of Disbelief," a relatively common trend of religious beliefs utterly dissolving not through a solid analytic mode, but rather a gradual emotional slide into some religious apathy, which is then rationalized by some form of agnosticism and later some form of atheism.
While I share a similar outlook on the matter, having decided simply that I didn't believe in god because I didn't feel like it, and then backed it up with the mountain of comparatively superior arguments in favor of the atheist camp, I don't find the method that is so commonly followed one that is at all supportive of the spirit of atheism, and its fidelity to logic, philosophy, and scientific discovery.
The conclusion that I, and many of these voices of disbelief were espoused to have reached are ones that were reached without following any steps before reaching them. We decided that there was no god and then filled in the gaps after we were comfortable with shouting it in our parents' faces - and that, I find wholly dissatisfying.
Now, it's fantastic that we reached a conclusion with so many bits of supporting data that could be thrown in retroactively, but any friend of philosophy, and certainly one of atheism in the United States, must be well acquainted with the propulsion of one's own rational arguments and discovery. The method of jumping to a conclusion before you've actually pieced the puzzle together -- especially because you "just stopped believing somewhere in your teens and didn't know why," is as repugnant as saying "god exists because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is self authenticating."
How do you feel about these testimonies, and their effect on the foray into the question of whether or not there really is a god?