Here at DC we are dealing with control beliefs. Control beliefs control how we view the evidence for and against Christianity. Those of us who debunk Christianity have control beliefs which interpret the available evidence against Christianity. Those who come here and defend Christianity have control beliefs which interpret the available evidence on behalf of Christianity. The question therefore is this: where to we get these control beliefs? I have previously suggested that we get them from the accidents of birth; that is, we get them from when and where we were born. See here, here, here, here, and see also exbeliever’s take on it, here.
Some Christians who have debated with us seem to take the position that evidence is all that is needed, and that intelligence will lead someone to see the same things that they see. But from the perspective of most all philosophically trained people THAT viewpoint is truly ridiculous.
My cumulative case arguments are to help the reader see things differently. There is no single piece of evidence or lone argument that will cause someone to change their control beliefs, because evidence is always interpreted by our control beliefs. Control beliefs must come crashing down all together or not at all. Control beliefs cause us to accept problematic conclusions in some areas because the sum total of what we believe has fewer problems than the alternative way of viewing things. I try to share why I see things differently than Christians do, and they do likewise with me. But it's all with the seeing. It's not about intelligence or education. It's about seeing. And any philosophically trained person knows this.
A cumulative case is one where the weight of the sum total of arguments just all of a sudden topples your previous set of control beliefs, and that is what happened to those of us here who debunk Christianity.
We all operate from control beliefs and presuppositions. But ours at DC are much fewer than those who defend Christianity. Christians must defend the whole canonized Bible, and/or presuppose it all.
Anyone who thinks about this one lone difference between our respective control beliefs will see clearly that our presuppositions are better. On the one hand, the fewer things we must presuppose, then the more likely that accurately describes our human condition, based upon the principle of parsimony. On the other hand, unlike Christians, I realize a healthy measure of skepticism about control beliefs because I know they are largely adopted from a culture. So my control beliefs are skeptical ones. That’s why I have argued for the Outsider Test and think it's a better way to proceed.