Why Don't Apologists Use Testimonials?

[directionless]

So you mean you want to understand why apologists come up with their answers? And you think testimonies would help? Do you not see how their minds work with all the Christians who are here on this site? My guess they don't use testimony is that they are aware that a testimony is not really supporting their case. It takes away from their credibility.

That's right. I'm curious about the variety of reasons that people start believing, continue believing, and stop believing.

 

Most of our debates focus on problems in the Bible and theology. That is only one facet.

 

I've always been a doubting Thomas.

- God could be real even if the Bible and theology are trash

- God could be fake even if the Bible and theology are wonderfully sensible

 

There are a variety of different types of Christians. I'm curious what makes them all tick.

 

I have tried asking these types of questions on a Christian forum (why did you start believing and why do you continue believing?). Surprisingly Christians rarely answer those questions. Ex-Christians here have answered these questions - but not too many Christians. That surprises me.

[sdelsolray]

…

To repeatedly use the argument of silence fallacy, the idea that because there is no evidence

for something, it must not exist, gets old.  

Yes, it can get old, when that particular fallacy is operating.  But it does not always apply.  For example, if you tell me there is an elephant in my dining room and after careful inspection it is determined there is no evidence of the elephant, then it is not illogical, nor is it fallacious, to conclude there is no elephant in my dining room due to a lack of evidence.

 

But I get your point about gnostic atheism.  "Knowing" that a particular god does not exist is a gnostic atheist claim.  Just like "knowing" a particular god does exist is a gnostic theist claim.  I suppose it depends on the claimant's definition of "knowledge".  Some say no one can have knowledge of anything.  Others say that once there is sufficient experience or evidence, even if it is not 100%, that this is sufficient to claim knowledge.  For example, in my experience and based on empirical evidence I have actually witnessed, my car starts because of electricity provided by a battery within the car (along with other reasons).  Now, I have not examined all cars, nor have I observed every car that has ever started, but I believe I have sufficient evidence to claim I "know" that my car starts because of electricity provided by a battery within my car (among other reasons).  Again, others will claim I cannot have "knowledge" of this.  Well, that amounts to a variety of a word's definition.

 

You appear to be an agnostic theist.  You have never claimed you "know" your particular group of deities and related supernatural entities exist, nor have you claimed to "know" that the related religious dogma actually exists or is true.  You have merely stated you believe these things - that you have faith these things are true.  Based on this actual evidence from your posts, I reasonably conclude you are an agnostic theist.

 

Since you tire of gnostic atheists claiming absolute "knowledge" that your God does not exist, I'm sure you are equally tired of gnostic theists who claim to "know" that your God exists.