So what do I not argue strongly enough or am I just an exception?
I never took religion seriously. My parents encouraged me to go to sunday school etc. but never tried to force or oblige. I learned very early in life that there was more than 1 religion. In fact I learned that at about the same time as I learned about the existence of any religion. It seemed rather obvious to me that if there is more than 1 religion they cannot all be right and if they cannot all be right then chances are none of them are. This opinion became even more entrenched when i got interested in mythology. When myths were used to explain things such as creation of man, the seasons etc. it became fairly obvious that all modern religions were just offshoots of this. Ask a stong believer in god why they believe, at some point usually at the very start they say well where did the universe and life come from? obviously it had to have been created and thus it proves gods existence. My automatic response is always, where did god come from. Their reply invariably is god always existed. Never once do they consider the universe simply existing. It always seemed like a fallacious arguement. They cant understand something so they create something to explain it, without realizing they have just moved the problem back one step.
However I admit the possibility of god existing, just that it is unlikely. Makes me an agnostic not an athiest though I do tend towards athiesm as it seems more likely.