Hi, Vienna, it is nice to "meet" you.
I am a ex-JW who is an atheist. My parents did not follow the Bible religiously, but they did raise us to believe the Bible was the inspired Word of God. We were taught to never question that. We did not have to follow the Bible, but it was emphasized that it was the Word of God. It was something we simply never questioned.
My sister, my brother and myself were religiously inclined. My sister's best friend was a JW, and she eventually became a JW. Later, my brother went and lived with my sister and her husband and six months later he became a JW.
My best friend was a devote Charismatic Catholic. I eventually became born-again. Eventually, I studied with the JWs, and got baptised.
I reason I joined and left the JWs was the same. I want to find truth. When I thought the JWs had truth, I joined them. Almost two decades later I found out the JWs were false, and left.
In my case, my personal life became a complete shambles and I wondered how a person as intelligent as I am could get in such a mess. I tried to guide all my life decisions by the Bible; I decided to check if the Bible was as reliable a guide as I had previously thought.
I decided to use as a standard measuring stick objective, verifiable evidence. Obviously, objective, verifiable evidence will not contradict the Bible if the Bible is truly the infallible Word of God. Was it Francis Bacon that said, "I would rather believe a rock than the Church."?
So I did some research and found the Bible did not hold water. I have a fairly good grasp of science which helped a lot. I also found that if you apply the same tests to the Bible that Christians apply to other religious books, the Bible is also found to not be inspired of God. So I discarded the Bible.
I read Skeptic magazine which debunks weird beliefs. It does show one how to evaluate a new belief. I applied these methods to religion.
What about the cases where you cannot find solid proof such as miracles? 1) Is it better to believe until I find reason to not believe, or 2) Is it better to not believe until there is good evidence to support belief.
If I use 1), then I must believe in Unicorns, little green men with sophisticated equipment (to hide themselves) living in the middle of Mars, etc. because I cannot prove they don't exist. It is very hard to prove a negative. That way, I would believe any amount of nonsense.
So I use 2). I will believe once there is enough objective, verifiable evidence to warrant belief. Hence, I do not believe in Unicorns. If objective evidence shows that Unicorns exist, then I will believe in them. This method takes away a lot of the "mystery" in life.
When I applied method 2) to the question of God, I could not find any evidence that indicates that He exists. Could God exist? Certainly. The probability is very, very low...so close to zero that I say it is zero. When objective, verifiable evidence shows otherwise, I will believe in God.
So, basically, it is my desire not to be hoodwinked again that makes me look for solid proof before believing something. Since the evidence for God is not there, I am an atheist.
Richard