Well - just to have said it right up front; it was not that I had been a JW, so now I was "mad at God" or bitter because of that.
I didn't flip from JW to atheist "in two easy steps". It was a long, continuous journey. My atheism is well researched, not some whim I had because I "hate JWs". That may be the case with some, but not me. I could easily have turned elsewhere, if "elsewhere" had had anything rational to serve up.
I also think it's important to point out that an atheist is not necessarily someone who vehemently denies the possibility of a God existing. Neither are they necessarily immoral, lack appreciation of beauty, or are emotionally dead. Neither are atheists one homogeneous group who have the same "beliefs" or share a common philosophy. Some are well researched, some are just atheist because they are raised atheist and haven't really thought about it much.
My former self of fifteen years ago would probably 'hate' my current self if "we" met, but only until I got to know my current self (!). I'm not really that different. Just a different way of thinking, and more information to process now.
Long after becoming 100% inactive, I still prayed, and I still believed in Jehovah. But since I was inactive, I had to ask myself; "Why exactly do you believe in Jehovah? Where did you get that name from in the first place?". So I continued to believe, but now in the more general "God", or at least "Creator".
Then I started reading(!), and decided I at least couldn't take the Bible literally anymore. That's not really a biggie in and of itself initially, since many religious people pick and choose what to believe and take literally, but I had always learned that the Bible is a whole, coherent work, and many Christian denominations still believe so; that that's a sign it's the word of God in the first place. In fact, the whole idea of a biblical 'canon' is largely based on which books quote from other books. Picking and choosing of course also brings the problem of what parts to "keep" and what parts to "discard", and many denominations differ in opinion on that (and will often damn you to hell for believing differently than their own 'pickings').
But people still pick and choose, so why couldn't I? It's like a house of cards. You can't keep taking away cards and expect the house to keep standing.
For instance (one small example); I could no longer take the flood story of Noah as a literal, global flood anymore. And a local flood wouldn't make sense either, as Noah then would have had plenty of years to warn people to flee the area, and to flee himself, with any animals that would be needed to save (animals usually take care of themselves when a natural disaster comes close though).
So why is that even important? Why not just take the flood story as a story, perhaps an allegory? Well - apart from wondering exactly what that allegory was supposed to teach me, it's a problem that 'the flood of Noah's day' is mentioned throughout the Bible, and Noah is part of its genealogy. It is - and he is - definitely treated as a historic fact by the later biblical writers, and Jesus 'himself' mentions the story. That's a problem, because to me, that undermines the veracity of Jesus himself. Not the historicity of Jesus, but he should know better, being (the Son of) God. "You can take Jesus out of the Bible, but you can't take the Bible out of Jesus".... or.... something...
I also feel that a book somehow given to us from the Creator should contain more detailed and accurate explanations of the world around us. What's the point of an allegorical story of Creation for instance, when you can "tell it like it is"? "Those poor peasant/desert people wouldn't be able to understand" ? No, I don't buy it. First of all, it should still be accurate, and second of all - if a child can understand it today, a grown-up back then would have understood it, being educated by God.
Well - I'm not going to go on and on here. Suffice to say, after a while, the Bible itself became not much more than an old book (it actually wasn't written 150 years ago, you know! ) with interesting stories and some history.
God was still there though.
But why was God there? What was he actually doing, and what had he done? Well - even if the Bible was more or less out the window for me, God had still created the universe and life. But in my own life, I could not recollect any prayer that had been answered in a clear cut way. And never a "yes"; in other words, never something I could point to and say "If it hadn't been for God intervening, that wouldn't have happened". On a more global scale, there were billions of other people - of various religions - praying, but ~30.000 children die every day. Perhaps God has a plan? Perhaps those praying don't have enough faith? Perhaps they belong to the wrong religion or denomination? Well - for some reason, I had stopped being a judgmental asshole after I became inactive, and I wouldn't let God get away with being one either, 'plan' or not.
But that would be anti-theism, not atheism, surely?
Well, yes - there was still the issue of someone having to have created all this. Very long story very short; no, not necessarily so, even if that thought is initially unintuitive.
I'm an ex-JW atheist, waiting for God(ot?) to possibly show up somehow.
If he does, I hope he has a good alibi. And if most Christian denominations turn out to be correct, I'm going to say to him what Moses said: "Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.". Perhaps then "the LORD [will repent] of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of his arrival, though.
I could write more extensively on these subjects, and I'm also fully aware of apologetics for some of these things, but I'm not writing a book here, just a short forum reply.
