The Reasons why "Just Following Jesus" Doesn't work

[TheRocketSurgeon]

We all make judgments even your signature is a judgement. The question I ask you is what are your motives behind making judgements like your signature and why you trust your judgment. 
 

That is an excellent point, Rekeisha. Why should we trust any judgment is the fundamental question of all skepticism.

Learning how to think, in order to avoid common thinking errors that can easily fool our human brains, is at least as important as learning facts, or what to think about them. 

I recommend to everyone that they read The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark  by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, which goes into a lot of detail about why people believe in silly things like alien abductions and tarot readings, and how to learn to spot flaws in thinking that lead people to such conclusions. The most important chapter is probably "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection", and gives this advice:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
   
   
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
   
   
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
   
   
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
   
   
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
   
   
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
   
   
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
   
   
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
   
   
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03...arl-sagan/