Good points ATJ.
What I said about the JW episode I could have said just as well about the move to "atheism" (a good measure of which is included in my own "?"). I don't mean (as some theistic apologists claim) that atheism as and of itself is a religious stance. I think in most cases it is not. But it can certainly be deemed a part of a "religious" experience, especially when coming from traditional theism; construed, not as a loss of "faith" but as "faith" (admittedly of a deeply personal kind) outgrowing the notion of "God".
[A philosophical theist would of course reply that "God" is not a notion and then cannot be outgrown (by Anselm's negative definition for instance, if God is that which nothing greater can be thought -- not sure of the English syntax here, lol; in Latin aliquid quo nihil majus cogitari possit), and I would not argue with that. I would perhaps only point out that practically both stances (affirmation and negation of "God") have to coexist for such an absolute to be maintained -- that any idea (idol) conceived under the name of "God" must be systematically denied for "God" to be "more"; at that point imo atheism and negative theology meet. But I digress... :)]
Anyway whether (and however far or long) you choose to play the game of reinterpreting your inherited religious vocabulary (including "God," "faith," "spiritual quest" of whatever) or cut the Gordian knot (which you can only do partly, I feel) it is still the same story continuing.