Our theists of all labels please answer....

[RoadRunner79]

Your first sentence here, is ridiculous.  Basically, if I am understanding correctly, you ask for an answer about one belief over another, but then reject anything  trying to point to that belief.  Second, a science lab is not appropriate, for all claims of truth. I'm not afraid of a neutral lab, where it is applicable.

I would also be curious as to how you are defining neutrality here.   It appear to me, that you are just rejecting anything from anyone who believes what they are proclaiming (however I assume you wouldn't do the same when what is proclaimed aligns with what you are selling).  The only question is what is the belief based on. From whom the information comes from, doesn't matter.  What you feel are their motives... doesn't matter.  Once again, I would encourage you to lay out, what these principles you are putting forth are, and we will examine them neutrally, and see where they go  (although note, not in a science lab, as that would be a category error and inappropriate to test this type of assertion).

No, from the start of this thread I have asked for EVERYONE to challenge themselves to ask THEMSELVES why they feel the need to hold the position they do. 

Ok... as people have done.

A science lab MOST CERTAINLY is the place where you determine facts. You don't get to make up scientific facts by yourself. If you are attempting to do that that "scientist" should be considered a QUACK.

---

Now if you are talking about issues of morality in the form of analogy, metaphor or art, those would be mere artificial reflections in the form of human stories reflecting our real evolutionary behaviors.

I can find morality in Star Wars, Charlotte's Web, Star Trek and Harry Potter without turning those fictions into a religion. 

Hubris is found in Oedipus Rex, but you don't treat that play as a holy book do you? Hubris as explained by psychology and psychiatry would be a personality trait of that individual based on their upbringing, life input and individual brain chemistry.

Art and metaphor are fine, but there is no need to think those things should replace a lab. Religion is merely something humans invent and pretend is true, and that pretending does convey our evolutionary behaviors, but it is not a real requirement to understand biological evolution and why humans behave the way we do.

Religion is fiction that humans falsely mistake as fact. It does create real social order, but it is not based on anything real. The ancient Egyptians for 3,000 years were successful centered around the very FALSE belief that the sun had a God named Ra controlling it. They depicted their motifs of bravery, heros and kindness, but none of those depictions made their god/s real.

---

Ok... I agree, a science lab is a good place to find out certain facts. And I don't think that with any facts (scientific or not),  you are free to make up for yourself.

This would include the many claims in your post.

I think your methodology is flawed, but if you would like to lay out your principles of reasoning here, then we can examine them neutrally and unbiased like, and see where that leads us.