I used to be an informal atheist. (I didn't believe in God and I didn't care that I had an opinion on the topic.)
I was once about the same as you were here. I didn't believe or disbelieve in God; I just didn't care enough to form an opinion on the subject.
Then I moved to the Southern U.S. and religion was forced on me from all sides. So instead of relying on emotions, feelings, or the ramblings of other religious people, I looked into the subject with an open mind from a position of 'what's more reasonable to accept: God exists or God does not exist?'
Do you think it is best for people to rely on reason, logic and evidence to make conclusions about the existence of the supernatural, or to base their entire position on a few experiences that they, as imperfect humans, could easily misinterpret in a variety of ways?
Four times in my life God visited me in person, the first time on the night of December 23, 1981. The other two times I was already a believer.
Tell me what you would say to a person of another religion who claimed they had been visited by their god personally. Would you think they were being delusional? Is it only THEY who could be deluded and not you?
I do not believe you were visited by God. I believe you think you were, but you're interpretation is wrong. God didn't visit you because God isn't real.
I see no reason to doubt, I am therefore a believer.
You really, seriously think there are NO reasons to doubt? lol.
I don't know how you people put your shoes on the correct feet. It's insane to say there are NO reasons to doubt. There are millions of reasons to doubt.