Believers and non-believers alike are corrupted by sin for sure, and to think we believers are any "better" than a non-believer is folly. However, I agree, these questions have been asked and answered and the answers are just not able to be processed by someone who does not understand what is really at play here.
Let me give an example:
I am a physician, and in explaining something about a medical condition, it is imperative for me to try to make things as simple as possible to be able to be understood by the patient. However, when explaining something to an adult who has an understanding of anatomy, physiology, chemistry or other sciences, it is easier to explain something than it is to a kindergartener who understands only what play time is and what they like to eat.
The same conversations are happening in this thread. I am not accusing anyone of not having full intellectual capabilities in this thread at all, but to ask a non-religious, non-Christian atheist or agnostic to understand almost anything being discussed in this thread (aside form their questions or arguments) is like asking a brand new believer to discuss the theology of the trinity. It just isn't something they can really grasp, because they just do not know what they don't know. it would be like me having a non-physician patient try to explain back to me the disease which I just diagnosed and have them be able to discuss the nuances and problems with the treatment with me. It just isn't going to happen because they don't even know what they don't know.
I am not trying to be mean here, and some have come for actual good questions and knowledge seeking, but there are definitely some on here who want nothing more than to trip up believers and try to drive home a point that faith is not provable (yeah, tell us something we don't already know). The fact there are people who are liking those posts without any history of commenting in this thread also tells me there are people watching and lurking. We (me, I am pointing my finger at me) have to be careful with what we are saying and how it is said. And I am sure there will be plenty who feel this is a complete insult to the non-believers calling them intellectual kindergartners, when I did not say anything of the sort.
This is not to say we dodge any questions posited, but we have to seek the motivation for the question and when it becomes obvious the motivating factor is simply "debate" then it might be time to move along.
Your physician analogy actually proves my point. It’s just another way of saying, “You wouldn’t understand.” That’s not an argument, it’s a convenient cop out. You’re casting believers as doctors with hidden expertise and skeptics as kindergartners who “don’t know what they don’t know.” It’s a nice trick to insult, deny it’s an insult then claim it was done with humility.
And notice: nonbelievers here have never denied you your personal, subjective faith. Why would we? Faith by definition is subjective. Many of you clearly have deeply felt religious experiences that shape your lives. What gets challenged are the claims, historical, theological, moral, that believers push into public debate. Pointing out that “faith is not provable” isn’t some checkmate, it’s simply acknowledging what you already admit. Pretending skeptics are only here to “trip up believers” is a red herring, not reality.
Your reasoning also collapses the moment you leave your own tradition. By your same logic, Muslims could say Christians “just don’t understand the Quran.” Hindus could say the same about the Vedas. Mormons about the Book of Mormon. Every religion can claim secret insider knowledge outsiders “just can’t grasp.” That doesn’t prove any of them true, it just insulates them from critique. It’s like that old T-shirt: “It’s a black thing you wouldn’t understand.” Once you play that card, the conversation ends because you’ve declared yourself beyond questioning.
And are you really prepared to write off all the nonbelieving academics, biblical scholars, historians and theologians, who’ve devoted their lives to studying scripture and Christian history? Many with credentials stronger than most pastors, often more fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and church history than believers in the pews. Are they “intellectual kindergartners” too? That’s not just condescending, it’s absurd.
As for the bit about “lurkers” liking skeptical posts, are you worried that’s evidence of spiritual forces at work or is the common sense explanation that it’s just normal internet behavior. Should I be similarly worried about people liking your posts. People read, they agree, they hit like. Seeing this ordinary activity as an indication of some dark powers present in this thread is not helping your case as a believer.
And finally, there’s an obvious unfair dynamic that continues to go on here. Skeptics don’t question the validity of your private faith, we can’t, it’s personal. What we challenge are your public claims. Yet believers have no hesitation questioning skeptics’ motives, accusing us of not trying hard enough, having hard hearts, or just not wanting the truth. That double standard says more about your approach than ours.
In the end, your analogy and your framing don’t resolve objections, they excuse you from facing them. If your answers hold, state them plainly and let them stand. But if all you can say is “you wouldn’t understand” or “faith isn’t provable,” then you’re not defending truth, you’re hiding from it.
