Why not deism?

[chimp3]

Basically, in my day to day life, I do not demand evidence from believers. I just don't believe them or their magic books. On line I may get into these debates or I may not. I live in a very religious community and I just glide through my day ignoring that nonsense. But, I am not willing to give personal anecdotes the same credence as physical evidence. If a believer states that their god can alter physical reality (water into wine, weather patterns,etc.) then they are making a claim about physical reality. The burden of proof is far greater for them since they have to demonstrate which property of their god altered the chemistry of water for instance. This is not a case by case situation. This is saying that reality is consistent.

That's all understandable. It's very unlikely that believers in literal stuff like water-into-wine are going to have any kind of persuasive evidence. 

It's a far cry, though, from what you said earlier:

Authoritative testimony is not evidence. Logical proofs are not evidence. Both need to be supported by evidence.

I agree that the fundies around you won't have good evidence. But I do think that authoritative testimony and logical proofs certainly are evidence, depending on the topic. (I suppose people disagree on who is "authoritative" -- that's something else that needs arguing out.)

Preachers/ Apologists don't impress me (my own Dad is a preacher). If believers want to filter out one expert over another then that is an internal problem for believers. This is not a problem with me. I don't believe any of them nor am conflicted about this. If their Sky Fairy wants to impress me, it is welcome to.