How does an apostate view faith promoting experiences?

Faith promoting experiences. Mormons love faith promoting experiences. They show up in General Conference, Sacrament meeting, Sunday School, Relief Society, Priesthood, and in virtually every other place that Mormons gather. They are given as evidence of all sorts of things, and they can be very versatile. There are some famous ones and some infamous ones. I imagine that every Mormon has a few that they hold dear.
I have had a few myself. I have had experiences that I viewed as evidence of a loving God or even evidence that The Church was true.
One particular summer, when I was a teenager, we were headed on a vacation to Oregon. We had just left my Dad's house in Provo when I started to feel very, very motion sick. It should be noted that motion sickness is not at all unusual for me. I am the type that gets motion sick playing video games. As I have grown up this tendency has lessened a little bit but it still catches me off guard sometimes. This particular time being motion sick was pretty bad though, so much so that I didn't feel I could stay in the car. We had only been on the road for an hour or so and just happened to be near my Grandparent's house. So my Dad decided to stop there and let me rest for a while.
As soon as we stopped the car and got out we saw a huge bubble on the sidewall of one of our front tires. My dad quickly went to get it fixed and by the time he was done I felt better and we were on our way again. I used to see this as God's way of keeping us safe by making sure that my Dad saw the problem before it turned into a dangerous blowout while traveling at freeway speeds.
Now? I view it as a simple coincidence. If you are thinking to yourself, "How could that be just a coincidence?" My answer would be, which is more likely, that God purposely made me sick so that I would get my Dad to stop the car so that he would see the problem, or that it was a lucky break? Wouldn't it have been easier to just stop the tire from developing a problem? Coincidences happen all the time. In fact there are so many things happening all over this world at any one time that it would be strange if there weren't weird coincidences.
Here is another example.
When I was 8 years old my mother accidentally put a gardening fork through my hand. We were weeding and she thought I was done and just casually threw the fork down, into my left hand. It entered about a half inch below the ring and little fingers. It went right between the two bones and missed all major nerves. Other than a cool scar I have no negative effects from this incident. This was always put out as a miracle. That God saved my hand from major damage by making the fork go right where it needed to go. If you are still with me this far you will know that I don't view this incident as miraculous at all. I view it as lucky.
If God wanted to impress me he could have easily stopped the fork in mid flight before it hit me. Or how about a simple prompting to my Mother to not throw the fork in the first place? The reason I still have full use of my hand today isn't thanks to God. It's thanks to good doctors, medical science, and luck.
Here is a good summary of why coincidences should not only not be surprising, they should be expected.

Pragmatic Morality

I have had a few discussions recently with friends, and on the usual forums, about morality. More specifically about whether or not a god is the source of all morality. I have no intention to rehash that debate here, because I have come to the conclusion that we have been asking the wrong question and looking at it all wrong.
The question about whether or not morality comes from god is an interesting one, but one about which there is simply not any evidence to support much on either side. In any case I don't think it really matters.
I am willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that god is the actual source of all morality. But my next question then becomes a problem for believers. What exactly does god have to say about morality?
If you are believer you probably view your particular set of morals as the ones god has commanded, but how is an outside observer to tell the difference?
Consider a thought experiment. Let's say that first contact occurs and that an alien but very human-like species lands somewhere on earth. Think Star Trek aliens, but hopefully more vulcan than klingon. They have no prior knowledge if human culture, thought, or religion. How would they know which version of morality to follow? To what books or people would you refer them?
Would you have them read the Bible? I have no intention of getting into detail about this but if you think the bible is a good source of morality you should read it.
The Koran? I assume most Muslims would say so, but if that is true I urge them to read their own holy book as well.
The Book of Mormon? A better attempt but still has plenty of problems.
I could go on and on but I think we can easily see that any religious book someone proposes is going to present problems, mostly for the people who don't belong to that religion.
What about religious leaders?
Most of these sources would say similar things about the vast majority of moral questions. The question of whether you should murder your children has a nearly unanimously agreed upon answer. These aliens could get the answers to the majority of moral questions from my kindergartener.
It is in the fine details where they differ. But within those fine details they have such a wide variety of views that it is impossible for any impartial observer to say which one of them is really speaking for god.
Which brings me to pragmatic morality. Since we cannot ever realistically use god to answer our questions about morality we are just going to have to do the best we can on our own. If there is a god I assume he would know the situation and understand.
So how do we pragmatically answer these questions? I think we use the most valuable tool that we have as humans, our intelligence. We use, reason, logic, and evidence to determine what moral behavior is healthy for humans and what behavior isn't. While at the same time being tolerant of honest differences of opinion. There doesn't have to be just one answer about how to live a moral life.