My overall view is this:
I considered all the pros and cons, problems and principles of both worldviews (theism and atheism) within the limits of my intellectual capacity.
I arrived at a certain point where, on balance, theism makes more sense to me and I devoted more time to trying to understand theology - at the expenses of science.
Most readers here arrived at the same point and decided that science makes more sense and went down a different path.
BOTH groups suffer from confirmation bias and start seeing what we want to see, but I honestly try and stay up to date with science because it is a wonderful thing.
(I am sensing most of you think - erroneously - that it is either science OR religion, and nothing can be further form the truth.)
E.g. Objections like that of @Fiji : "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours", are easily refuted/explained in the proper theological context. The same goes for 'God promotes genocide' and silly claims like that.
Theology is not science and they concern themselves with different perspectives of the human condition.
The most theologically educated people can become Atheists in The Pulpit.http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200712/atheist-in-the-pulpit
There is no correlation between understanding "theology" and knowing that Christianity is true. You could think you totally understand it, and then be deconverted by some minor thing that resonated with your experience. The problem for most Christians, is that although the theology may make perfect sense to them, they have not actually experienced anything [supernatural] of substance, or that couldn't be reinterpreted by a different viewpoint.
As a Christian you have been trained to have blind spots in the theology. The blind spots are so culturally ignored that it takes a skeptic years to actually find them, by googling and reading random websites. When you find them, you can't just dismiss them. They stay as permanent blights.
I was terribly surprised to find that there was no hell (or afterlife) in the OT. It just never occurred to me. I told a skeptic friend, and he was *gobsmacked* as well. I told an evangelical Christian that, and he had to go and look at the OT, and then came back, and said I was right. But he had had a convincing conversion experience, and had been a bad boy, so his religion was holding his life together. The next realization comes when you see how desperate early Christians were for hell to exist, that they deliberately mistranslated it into the Vulgate and KJV. The problem comes from Christians needing to ignore other Jewish salvation ideas, or the books where hell was developed, being rather shonky and inconsistent, and not backed up by a convincing Prophet. Judaism really couldn't develop, after the fictional "Moses" wrote his stuff down, so they escaped to an "Oral Tradition". None of that got recorded, but Christians use certain versions of old stable books, so there is a big jump to Jesus' "understanding". Jesus never said which books he was quoting from. He just says "You have heard", or "did you not read", or "you do not know your scripture". Apart from the 5 books of Torah, the texts of Judaism were in disarray, and the Torah does nothing to back up a belief in hell, or the word "eternal", which seems to be used a lot, and erroneously in the NT.
The next terrible blind spot in Christianity is the schism between the Jerusalem Church and Paul. Atheists are fond of quoting the Sermon on the Mount, to confound modern Christians. We know that you don't adhere to any of it, and regard it as hyperbole. It takes some time to realise why that's important, though, because the Sermon also contains comments that insist Jewish law is in force until the end of time, and furthermore, if you tell anyone otherwise, you will go to hell (so, be careful of your reply). One Catholic chap, here, actually told me that this was Jesus talking hypothetically, prior to him being the savior - that is: you would have to follow the Sermon, prior to Jesus being the Savior, but not after. The big blind spot, is that Christians are taught to view all the NT books as a consistent work, rather than see the obvious: that they were written by competing sects, and pushing different ideas. The book of Matthew is written by the Jerusalem Church, and casts a big rock at Paul, telling the audience that many will come in Jesus' name, and will fool the elect. Paul certainly fooled the elect, and you. A big question that Christians never ask themselves, is why Jesus (who was a God) would be unable to communicate his true message to his disciples, but instead needed another guy (who never met him) to fix up all the mess that the people who met him made. It's very similar to someone else coming along and changing things, which is exactly what the Jerusalem Church says Paul is doing. The irony is that modern Christians left that all in Galatians and Acts, and it's supposed to be somehow convincing. We are supposed to believe Paul, because he says he wouldn't lie to us, and that Jesus' work would have been in vain, if you don't believe what Paul says. No, Jesus would have just been unsellable, so you pick that version of Jesus. You have to.
I'm sure you think you have explanations, but you will find the explanations you have, have to be based on assumptions. Assumptions like that the NT was written as a coherent work, by people who believed the same thing.