The atheist regulars don't believe in personal testimony that they can cross-examine, don't believe in ancient testimony either that they can't cross-examine. New or old subjectivity doesn't meet their epistemological concerns. One thing that make me a theist, is my open epistemology. Carefully reproducible experimental quantitative evidence, or perception derived from that, is the narrowest rational epistemology. Controlled observation or controlled experiment. So we know in that way, that there is a phenomena (not a neumena) out there, that we call an electron, and we know its mass and other physical properties, because specialists can repeatedly measure them in a controlled way. The existence of the electron was a surprise however, in the Victorian universe, charge was thought to be a continuum.
So within that general epistemology, personal testimony isn't worth much, and that is what you and I have, and frankly what I find interesting. For them it isn't even interesting. Naturalism vs humanism.