20 Questions for Theists

[Colanth]

I am a "theist" because I believe in God. If I didn't believe in God, I would be a theist.

Yes - since "theist" means "believes in a god", believing in one of them (God, in your case) makes you a theist. But If you're asked why you're wet and you answer "because there's water on my skin", you're not answering the question, you're explaining the definition of the question.

Maybe the question should have been "what made you become a theist at the time you first became one?" Of course, most theists wouldn't be able to answer that question because the indoctrination began in the womb.

- comparing my experience of life as "nothing" (identifying as neither theist or atheist)

"Neither theist" (not theist) IS atheist. Or, to break it down, not believing in any god (not theist) is not believing in any god (atheist). You can't both not have any belief in any god and not lack belief in any god. Not having belief means that you lack belief. Not theist means atheist.

versus my latter experience as a Catholic: in terms of which was more satisfying and why?; which was more meaningful and why?' in what positive / negative ways were these experiences different? etc etc

What does "more satisfying", "meaningful" and "different" have to do with "true"? God doesn't exist because believing is more meaningful to you (unless you're positing a purely subjective god), it exists because it exists (if it does).

- considering Catholic morality ... which is more reasonable?

To you? The one you already believe is. Duh!

which is most accurate?

Morality, being non-factual, can't be "accurate".

which is evidence based? What is true?

Same argument. Morality is consensus, not fact.

which is honest and which is tainted by self-interest or other agendas?

Religious "morality" has always been driven by self-interest - the interest of the hierarchy.

What is appealing?

Appealing has nothing to do with right.

What is just?

Infinite punishment for finite transgression is unjust by definition. (That makes Charistianity - all sects - inherently unjust.)

- comparing Catholic philosophy with other philosophy: What makes sense? which is complete?

Catholic philosophy once held that the Earth was the center of the universe, and unmoving. Does that make sense? Was it complete?

What other arguments are there, if any? Which of these are plausible, if any? If we cannot eliminate anything, what is more convincing or likely?

Catholicism seems to have proved itself to be worthy of being the eliminated opinion many, many times.

- comparing Catholic culture with other culture:

There's no "Catholic culture". There's African culture, among certain Africans who practice Catholicism. There's Caribbean culture, among people in the Caribbean who practice Catholicism. But African culture and Caribbean culture are nothing alike.

which is beautiful?

What does that have to do with anything?

which is eternal?

Not even the universe is eternal. There are only about 10^100 shopping years until the last Christmas.

If you mean eternally true, it was once part of Catholic philosophy that priests could marry. Then, for financial reasons, not religious reasons, it was proclaimed that God didn't want priests to marry (only among Western Catholicism - the Eastern rite still allows the clergy to marry). That "eternity" didn't last too long, did it?

- considering Catholic understanding of God: view and meaning of scripture, of tradition, of Jesus Christ: do these documents have a common thread?

Again, what if they do? All Harry Potter books have a common thread. Does that make them true?

Is this reasonable?

For books that copied other books to have a thread in common with the books they copied from? (It's known that 3 of the gospels were copied from the 4th.) Of course.

Is this reasonable if God exists?

It's reasonable if God doesn't exist.

Is this what we would expect from a God?

A book that's not completely understandable a mere 2,000 years after it was written? No. A book whose morals (it's not only moral to own other people, it's moral to beat them) soon become morally repugnant? No. Yes, I know, there are Christian explanations for that. A god that created the entire everything couldn't have made it just as morally repugnant back then? (Careful how you answer - either answer is saying that you have grave doubts that your religion has any meaning.)

I went through various considerations like this, to ultimately reach my conclusion, on and off, over several years.

It looks more like you started with your conclusion and "considered" how to justify it.