I didn’t say they don’t have value.
I said they were worthless when it comes to determining the facts (and this was in a context of a particular definition of “factual”). To be perfectly clear they do not provide any objective truth, i.e. no reasonable expectation that people should accept the truth of claims made. AND religion (as well as politics and sales schemes) is a big part of the reason why no such expectation is reasonable. For any number of religions with contradictory claims you will find crowds of people ready to give their testimonies. AND with politics and sales schemes this includes testimonies of things which are demonstrably false – testimonies that things will cure you even when they will in fact kill you.
But the point is not that testimonies are worthless. The point is that testimonies are not enough. If I was a juror in a court of law and ALL the prosecution could give was the testimony of so called witnesses (without one shred of corroboration from anything) then I would certainly conclude there is reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime. BUT there are types of corroborating evidence which are also not enough by themselves but which can be made enough with such witness testimonies added to them. So I would not say that testimonies have no value.
And there are a lot of other areas where I not only see the value of testimony but actually use them as a means to make a decision such as consumer evaluations. I was doing so just recently when looking for a dentist. To be sure I read them with a grain of salt, because I know how untrustworthy are. But they are not worthless. They often give you reason to try something yourself when you have nothing else to guide you.
But a source of objective truth? No.