Religious experience is dependant on your learning certain ideas (indoctrination). If you do not learn those ideas, or you learn a different set of ideas, then you either don't have those experiences or your experiences differ.
They are true to you. They are false or simply non-existant to others.
I don't know that this is the case. If religious experience were all about learning certain ideas, then it would be enough to simply study them out of a book with no direct experience of their application or 'what they mean' (in a broad sense). I can name the five pillars of Islam, but that is not the same as going to a mosque. It seems pretty fundamental that learning about something and experiencing that thing are not the same.
And simply knowing or learning about ideas says nothing about their truth either way, so the bit about things being true for you and false for others cannot be dependent upon the degree to which the person judging them knows about them. Certainly there are many atheists who have studied the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, etc. and still remain atheists, and likewise many Christians, Muslims, and Jews who probably don't know their scriptures as well as they'd like to think they do and yet remain convinced that they are true.
It's a problem of epistemology that is not solved by the accumulation of knowledge. If you ever want to make the claim that anything is true, eventually you have to put the books down and pick a street, whether that means rejecting all of them, or all but one, or whatever. And that still likely won't say anything about their truth so much as what you are personally persuaded by. But are things 'true' or 'false' because we think they are? Not if we're talking about objective truth.
This is why I think it is better to say that there is no objective truth behind religion(s) -- at least not objective in the sense of being something that everyone can agree on, like water being wet (I don't think objective actually means 'universally agreed upon', but that's another discussion). There is only the lived experience of given communities that testify to what they have believed based on those experiences for X number of years/centuries. Religion is experiential in this way, not based on a secular idea of objective truth. The claims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah, or that Muhammad is the messenger of God, or that God chose Israel as His people are some of the
least objective things I can imagine. Hence the atheist or agnostic who cannot believe in anything unless they are shown objective proof of its veracity will continue to not believe in religion, while the religious person is wise to not wait around for such proof that they should know will never materialize. It is only because of the pervasiveness of the modern secular mindset in today's world that objective proof is prized as being more valuable or trustworthy than experience, though, and since religious people by definition don't share that mindset (though plenty have been influenced by it; cf. the modern atheist who nevertheless lives in a formerly religious society will nonetheless often show some interest in religion as a sociological object...hence threads like this one), that doesn't really come into play for the people you are trying to talk to/about.
Hence we will forever talk past each other because to each of us the people on the other side don't know what truth is (you think it's objective facts like water being wet while the religious think it is shared and mutually confirmed experiences), so talking about what is true and what is false and why is ultimately useless.