What would make you take off your hat?

I appreciate the honesty but I don't appreciate the position.

What are the chances that you would hold on to your beliefs if you were born into a different family in a different country in a different society? You happened to be exposed to a certain attitude at a young age. Is that a reason to hold on to it your whole life? It turns out that the long books you wrote are nothing more than an attempt to score goals that were predetermined – not by you but by your kindergarten teacher.

Daniel Shalom. You raise one after another of the same (and wrong) questions here that have been answered more than once on the site.
I will ask you again: What is the chance that I would know the theory of relativity if I had not studied it in the physics department? Is this a reason to abandon the knowledge I received there, or to see it as something subjective and not binding? What is the chance that a secular person would have remained secular if he had been born into a religious family? So secularism, in your opinion, is also just an environmental construct. If so, we are left again with the question of who is right and what is the truth.
All a person can do is examine his positions and hear other positions and then formulate a position. And it is indeed true that when he examines things, he has biases and a priori assumptions with which he comes to the discussion. Therefore, this is not a guarantee that he will not be mistaken (even in science, you talked about confirmation and not proof, remember?), but it is the most and the best he can do. Therefore, I raise arguments in favor of my positions to the best of my understanding. If someone disagrees with them, let them be respectful and explain why in a substantive argument. To claim that these arguments are incorrect because I was born into a religious family is a poor ad hominem argument, which appeals to the person rather than the subject. The convenient refuge of the desperate atheist.
Incidentally, since Kant we have learned that people usually present reasons and arguments that justify their a priori positions (I have often called this a “theological” argument, as opposed to ”philosophical”, but not in the conventional sense*). This is human nature and it is not necessarily wrong. See my fourth notebook or my first published book on this.

What about going back in time to the time of Mount Sinai? If that is possible, we can see whether the Torah was really given or not.

Or special glasses with which you can see God and then check if he exists

There are a few things that will make a believer take off his kippah: showering, immersion in a mikveh, and a haircut!

Tried and tested!

Best regards, Barber Shauer

It's just that seeing God is impossible and in fact it's not even well defined. Time travel might be possible, at least theoretically (after all, it's travel to another dimension). If this is indeed possible then it would put all religions to the test of refutation.

Rabbi, if I'm not mistaken, you mentioned in the first book that if he refutes your proof regarding the revelation at Mount Sinai, you will "take off your kippah," right?

I have no proof. If they convince me it wasn't.