Since religious claims are, by nature, untestable, I do well if I can test the credibility of the one making the claim by seeing if they are fair and truthful regarding matters that are testable. You, on the other hand, have not only made bold claims, but have employed dishonest rhetorical devices in order to bolster your claim by tarnishing both my credibility and that of your fellow religionists. So, all I have to go on is your word. If I can show that you have used dishonest rhetorical techniques, or have made claims that can be tested, then I can know whether to take your untestable claim seriously. I wonder if many people resolve to atheism because of the dogma of religion.
All people start out as atheists, and then most are later taught theism by their parents or others.
I wouldn't say that theists become atheist, but rather that atheists become theists. Meanwhile, I haven't encountered a religious creed that is not dogma. Even your explanation of your experience forces you to conclude what you have concluded rather than allowing you the option of further scrutinizing your observations and sensations and feelings, perhaps comparing your story with those of others who may or may not have had similar experiences, and always holding open the option that all claims of fact are subject to revision and possible overthrow by new information. This is the difference between dogma and liberal scientific method. I prefer to subject all of my ideas to the scrutiny of others, and to abide by the results of that scrutiny whenever I can see what they are saying.