What I did was handle your example in a way that more closely corresponded to the actual experiences under discussion (alluding to Saul on the road to Damascus, specifically). You are specifying too much in your example, and it assumes the point it argues - we are talking about experiences in which the person does not know what has happened to them, fundamentally. Their own belief is then mediated by their culture, which we are referring to as "hearsay". And unlike many other experiences, which can be repeated and checked out and investigated in person, this kind is almost completely dependent on that hearsay. Saul did not have a revelation that he was epileptic, nor could he have had one. Nor, if I had been Saul knocked down on the road to Damascus, could I have had a revelation of my epilepsy. And the fact is that was never the point, issue, or objection. The complaint has been that people, theists in particular and relevantly, expect me to take their beliefs seriously and treat them respectfully and allow for their significant possibility - the beliefs themselves, their content, not the person - due to the sincerity and strength with which they are held, regardless of circumstances otherwise. That is the argument from sincerity as I meet it, most commonly. You have suggested that atheists generally mistake this argument for another, a demand for belief. I don't, and neither do most other atheistic writers and people I meet.