CNikki,
I was raised Baptist. I went to Christian school growing up and took many courses in the Bible and apologetics, etc. When I went to college, I majored in biology and found out that a lot of the stuff I had learned about science was demonstrably incorrect. At that point, I still believed in god but became skeptical of the Christian community's take on science. I began to pursue a more rigorous understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of nature vs. the supernatural, belief vs. knowledge, faith vs. certainty, etc. That ultimately led me to the conclusion that, in terms of reproducibility, supernatural explanations of the universe seemed to have built in mechanisms for dealing with situations where a particular event did not achieve a desired outcome. By comparison, science has nailed things down to the point where, if we launch a satellite or use GPS triangulation or whatever, science can give a consistent, reproducible, quantifiable, measurable answer that is correct 99% of the time. Of course, as time goes on and science becomes further refined, the answers on a particular question become more accurate and more accurate. Faith never seemed to have the same reproducibility. When things went wrong, it was part of God's plan. When things went right, to God be the glory. The randomness and lack of producibility seemed, to me, to indicate that the underlying philosophy did not accurately describe the universe. After that, I "came out of it" as you say.