5 points for deconversion:

 1.  Question to the theist:  If I provide you with proof that Christianity and belief in God is unjustified and false, will you change your beliefs?  Explain that you will change your beliefs if they successfully prove their position to you.

 2.  Ask the theist, "Why do you believe X?" or "By what standard do you determine whether your beliefs are true?"  X can be christianity or Islam or any religion.  Moreover, it can be ANY irrational belief.  Realize that this is not the same a, "What do you believe?"  It is "Why do you believe what you believe?"

Discuss why faith is a poor means of deriving truth.  Discuss how there are two ways of knowing something, through our minds and our senses.  Discuss the unreliability of "feeling" that something is true.

3.   Ask how the theist explains suffering in the world if God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful.

4.  Discuss ethics and how ethics cannot be derived from God.  God must have reasons for determining what is good and what is bad, and there is no reason why we can't figure out these reasons ourselves.  Moreover, if someone claims to have commandments from God that contradict our sense of reason, we must be very critical of the authenticity of their revelations.  Since moderate christians scour the Bible, cherry-pick all the good stuff, and "re-interpret" the bad stuff, they obviously have an innate sense of good and bad that is PRIMARY over the bible.

5.  Ask the theist, "why do we need God to be happy and have a meaningful life?"

6.  (Cheating with a bonus point) Ask the theist to explain how the soul interacts with the physical structure of the brain to create consciousness and physical events in the brain.

 --As I said, these are feeble attempts.  I'm so caught up in my own philosophy and all the jargon, I need to be levelled to the ground by someone in order to figure out how to "bring it down" on a level that a layman can understand.  Any takers?

Morality and teleology seem to be the most common reasons theists embrace god, at least from my own personal, anecdotal encounters.  So as you metioned, I would point out that theism doesn't solve any of the "problems" of morality -- i.e. where morality comes from, how to derive "ought" from "is," etc.  Of course, I use the word "problems" loosely there because I don't regard some of these as real problems, but only projections of concerns theists have, such as the concern that people would devolve into degenerate reprobates if they stopped believing God was watching their every move.

As far as teleology is concerned, I would point out that all teleological arguments for god beg the question.  I have never heard a teleological argument presented in a non-question-begging way.  To state that the universe was designed with us in mind becomes untenable when you realize that the rock sitting in your backyard also has it pretty good, as far as the universe's "design" is concerned.  If the parameters of the universe had been slightly different, that rock may not come to exist, but as Carl Sagan pointed out, nobody talks about lithocentric principles the way we talk about anthropic principles.

It should also be noted that when people claim to have "revelations" or "personal experiences," we ought to ask how they derived knowledge of and drew conclusions from them.  If the revelation was such that they had a "spiritual vision," well then, what is vision if not an observation -- an application of empiricism?  As such, a revelation falls into the realm of the empirical and is subject to the same criticism and scrutiny as any other empirical observation.  So we can ask if there were material phenomena contributing to the vision that was not controlled for, and we can ask whether there were cognitive biases influencing the way in which conclusions were drawn.

What is a "true" Christian, in you're estimation? In other words, how do you discern a "true" Christian, like yourself, from a "false" Christian (or whatever terms you would use)?

I guess I would define a true Christian as someone who believes that he is in rebellion against God, and that his rebellion must be punished. That God sent his Son Christ Jesus to be punished as a substitutionary atonement. That the recieving of this atonement is only possible through faith in Christ.

All your points are good Doctoro, and the first 3 obstacles to deconversion are really hard to challenge.  Most people are happy to collude in something that they may not really believe in their hearts if they think it does some good for their family and society.  Even as a convinced atheist I'd struggle not to tell a dying child he/she's going to heaven, or to say there's a real atheist alternative to the various Christian volunteer movements (even though many who volunteer may not believe, it's the social cohesion etc that a local church brings that's motivated them).  I think the best way forward is to debate and implement small steps that even theists can agree with - get religious organisations taxed if they're money-making, or overseen by the state if they're like any other charity, so as to limit the con-men, child abusers and preachers of hate.  Make it impossible for a child to leave school without having learned basic facts about the age of the universe, evolution, history of religion, separation of church and state in the constitution.  State intervention when someone refuses a blood transfusion for their child on religious grounds, etc etc.  It's the special priveleging of religion above all other faction and opinion that gets me, and how the teaching of fundie Xianity is insidiously becoming a force beyond the law.

You've really hijacked this post.  Your reply has nothing to do with the original thread.  Moreover, this part of the forum is made specifically for atheists only.  There are plenty of areas for you to discuss your theism with atheists here.  I forgive you -- you may not have known.  Try going to the theist/atheist area on here.  Then I will be happy to discuss this topic.  Welcome to the group.  We like to discuss these issues with theists.  And as always, if you provide rational arguments that overturn my position, I will convert to your position.  Give me your best arguments.