You know what I noticed (aside from the article itself) about that page? If you scroll through all of the comments, most posters are agreeing that theists cannot be rational, religious reasoning leads to false conclusions, and critical thinking must automatically discount a belief in Christianity. And yet not one of them were generous enough to provide concrete, indisputable, scientific evidence to back those statements up.
With regard to the article itself: I was thinking to myself that it sounds like she had a pretty tough childhood. Not that there was anything wrong on her father emphasizing the need to think critically (that’s a good thing), but that he appeared to (according to her) militantly
overemphasize it to the point where she may have lost the natural enjoyment of childhood that partly comes from indulging in wonder, fantasy, imagination, and self-discovery. Speaking personally, I think that would have stressed me out completely and I probably would have rebelled as well. (Though I assume in her mind the choice to become an atheist was not born out rebellion, but a natural result of intellectual enlightenment.)
Her narrative is incomplete in many ways though, most especially because she doesn’t elaborate upon what drew her toward atheism, aside from being disappointed with the answers to questions that bothered her. Or, more specifically, *which *questions did atheism answer for her that Protestantism could not? What conclusions about life and purpose has she reached through her critical thinking skills? What is this freedom she speaks of - is it absolute, it is free from external influences? She answers only this:
There was no miracle to cure me of the fear and pain, no God to turn to for comfort. But it did heal. Eventually. I only barely fear Hell now, and my instinct to pray only turns up on rare occasions. For a while now, I’ve been educating myself in science, a world far more uncertain than the one I left, but also far more honest.
Someone once asked me if I would trade in my childhood for another, if I had the chance, and my answer was no, not for anything.
My reason is that, without that childhood, I wouldn’t understand what freedom truly is — freedom from a life centered around obedience and submission, freedom to think anything, freedom from guilt and shame, freedom from the perpetual heavy obligation to keep every thought pure. Nothing I’ve ever encountered in my life has been so breathtakingly beautiful.
Freedom is my God now, and I love this one a thousand times more than I ever loved the last one.
Maybe she provides further elaboration in another essay.

I would be curious to read it, because this one disappointed - it had a lot of build-up, but the ending was flat and empty.