There is an implicit assertion that a person's testimony is true and accurate as is. Without evidence to verify that it is, it's not evidence in and of itself, it's just another claim/assertion. It's circular to use that as evidence of anything. You're multiplying contingencies by doing so, which would serve to do nothing but complicate any case by using it. And it's unlikely you could indeed verify its accuracy with evidence anyway, or if you could, the evidence is what tells the story, not the testimony, so it would be useless anyway.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
