Why are the majority of theists unable to recognise that testimony is not evidence that a god exists*?

Self imposed ignorance on what makes a testimony from an individual valid.

Wrong. Testimonials ARE evidence, otherwise courts would never allow personal testimonies as evidence. You might decide they don't hold much weight, but that simply does not mean they aren't evidence.

"Did you bother to read the additional details? It was only one short sentence. Testimonials are NOT evidence that the thing stated is factually true."
- Of course I read it. And you're still wrong. Testimonials ARE evidence whether you like it or not. It's a matter of how much weight they hold.

Because they want to believe, and will latch onto anything that excuses that.

Why isn't it? It's certainly not proof, as testimonies can be incorrect, but why should it not be counted as evidence?

We count the testimonies of scientists as validation for a peer-reviewed study. We count the testimonies of witnesses in a court of law as valid evidence for conviction of a crime.

It seems that the only reason not to consider the testimony of a theist as evidence of God's existence is because you don't want to. It doesn't fit your made-up "rules" that are designed to protect your worldview from any potential alternatives.

Oddly enough they reject the testimony about gods other than their own.

"testimony" is a type of "evidence"

The dispute you have is really about how persuasive the evidence is.

An analogy directly to your issue --

In an assault case -
the victim says "I was assaulted by this guy"
this is supported by testimony from some bystander
the accused says "I wasn't even there"
and this is supported by his girlfriend who says that he was at her house.

All of those are testimonial evidence.
The jury takes all of of these testimonies into consideration and weighs their believability and comes to a ruling on his guilt or innocence.

Likewise --
when a person examines the religious texts, he/she weighs the believability of the testimony -
some people believe this one,
others that one,
still others believe none of them --

and voila - we have a variety of religions and Atheism --
all equally based on presented evidence.

=============

EDIT to comment

=============================

> The 'dispute' is NOT whether or not testimony is evidence. The additional details ...It's what testimony is evidence OF that is misunderstood.

My answer already took that into consideration.

See my example of an assault trial --

The entire thing hinges on testimony of 4 people in absence of any physical evidence.
As per your question --
even if they are all entirely sincere -- they can only testify to what they believe not what genuinely in some objective reality occurred.

In the trial -
the jury then weighs the evidence and makes judgement about whether it believes it.
Now - in the criminal trial there is the presumption of innocence "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- this shifts the weight of the evidence strongly in the direction away from the accusers
in a civil trial the presumption for the defendant is lower - "preponderance of evidence" - which shifts the evidence less
and we may well come to two different decisions based on whether this was a criminal or civil trial --

the accused may be found "not guilty" in the criminal trial but have to pay damages in a civil trial.

In other legal systems there may be no presumption -- with the jury left to weigh the evidence in whichever direction it wants --
and therefore come out with a conviction where an American jury would have had to dismiss.
....

All human experience is subjective.

And most cultures accept testimony of experience as evidence for the experience.
What is left is for the observer to evaluate the probativeness of that evidence of experience with relation to some presumed objective reality.

Same for choice of religion and irreligiousness

The reasonable thing to do therefore is to create a system of religious accommodation -- respecting the viability of the choice of the other as long as that choice does not harm your direct interests.

The first person to produce a single tiny little piece of verifiable evidence for any god will become world famous and mega rich!

Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.

The majority of theists are unable to recognize that testimony is not evidence their god exists because the majority of theists are dumb@$$ brain dead idiots with a nasty penchant for beating themselves in the head with a ball peen hammer. Rolls eyes.

And what proof have you godless atheists given? NONE!

evidence of darwin evolution , none. but its taught as fact.

I like to point out that North Koreans can offer testimony that they actually met their god and actually shook his hand. If testimony is as credible as they claim it is then the North Koreans have them beat hands down. Hope this helps.

It's personal/subjective evidence.

God's existence is self evident.
nevertheless, eye-witness testimony for Jesus of Nazaruth, presented in every book of the new testament, is valuable historical evidence.
the fact that the words of Jesus came true, proves the bible is divinely protected.
''For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.''
''Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.''

Testimonies in courts are subjected to intensive examinations before determining if they are convincing or not. The same is true about the Christian gospels. We Christians today don't have evidence. Our belief is purely faith based. Evidence is only necessary to justify something. If we believe in being productively charitable, it doesn't require justification. But that doesn't mean that evidence was never present. In the Christian gospels, it is said that Jesus presented evidence to His disciples.

Because their hallucinations seem so real.

Space Wasp my friend, why are the majority of atheists unable to recognise that a first hand personal experience of the love of God in the believers lives is all the evidence we need to know that God is real. Our testimony is simply an outpouring of the sheer joy of our unique first hand experience. I hope that you will have your own first hand personal experience Of the love of God in your life too, one day soon.

Because there can be no evidence that you would accept.

Nature testifies that a single Law Giver who is greater than the Universe exists. Deal with that.

When you arbitrarily define what evidence you will and will not accept, you're not playing fairly. Personal testimony are how a lot of medical trials work. They also are the dominant type of evidence used in our court system. They are valid for anthropology, history, and social sciences, and are commonly used in economics and political science as well. So on what basis are you excluding personal testimony from the rosters of what is going to be "valid evidence?"