Agreed -- this will probably work best for the incredible mass of people ahead who may or may not know (through the grapevine), but who I've never addressed the topic with in person (and who may volunteer some apologetics or want to know exactly why I don't believe).

There are other types of situations where this wouldn't help as much.

Some of the nearly-as-awkward conversations are the close friends who are aware of the situation and always want to know "if there's been any progress" or "where I'm at since the last time." Or those who feel that it's necessary to tell me repeatedly that they miss the common ground we shared or even like a part of me is missing.

While I fully admit that we've lost the common ground, I don't think I've necessarily lost any "part" of me. I think I've simply applied a studious tendency that was already present toward a new area that happened to be something we were incredibly immersed in. I wrote about this in a series of posts about my attempt to debunk a multi-level marketing scheme HERE. The pertinent passage is from part 3 (the preface was discussing my "anal" researching nature about other decisions, then connecting it with the current topic of interest, god):

...somewhere deeply ingrained in my nature is a desire to learn, understand, fiddle, and to know. I can't tell you that I had anything to do with it being there, but it's there. It comes out all the time when it's not convenient (e.g. when I should be sleeping but am on Wikipedia or reading books until 3:00am instead).

When I questioned god, I simply did what I always do. I applied my reasoning skills in the best way I knew how. Suspend judgment and belief and try to prove Christianity to myself. It hasn't worked. I think it's a great idea, but I was met with immense dissent from fellow believers. But why?

My reflection on my nature has led me to think of how others perceive my decision making and analytical tendencies. Honestly it's with almost unanimous respect...No one suggested that my reasoning or decision making is flawed.

But what about now? Now I am criticized for stepping outside of the bubble and suspending belief. I'm told that I should have had faith seeking understanding in order to come to the truth. For some reason, one can only reach "the truth" if approached from one of two starting positions: assuming that god exists and that Christianity is true.

Anyway, perhaps that wasn't entirely pertinent, but I wanted to highlight that there are, indeed, other circumstances where someone might not be presenting new material for me to read... they just disagree a priori and are unhappy about it. And decide to reiterate that dissatisfaction frequently. This isn't in a way that blatantly says, "It's your fault that you don't believe" -- it's just a verbal lamentation that has the same effects as following it up with, "Yeah, so I feel like shit about our relationship and you cause that upon me."

I have not figured out what to do in these situations rather than simply say, "Yeah. I can absolutely see where you would feel that way." That's about it.