Our theists of all labels please answer....

[Brian37]

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.

No, a science lab is the only place to determine facts.

Do not confuse history or news or metaphor as having the same qualities. That is not the same category nor should it be treated the same.

WHEN you want to find out the effects of gravity on an object, that is done through neutral experiment and neutral peer review.

"The New England Patriots won the Super Bowl" while a factual observation, is not an attempt to say "Since they won that makes Apollo the one real god".

"Donald Trump became president" also while provable fact, is not trying to prove Allah to be the one true God.

Historians report facts, like a reporter.
News reporters also SHOULD , not that they always do, report facts, not pander to what people like to hear.
Anthropologists are also reporters, but not to sell you something, but to say, "These are our neutral observations as to what we recorded as to how this society lived and what they believed", but again, that is also not a sales pitch.

I like Star Wars because the underdog beats the bully. Yea, but again, also not a scientific fact, but a metaphor reflection or human reaction to a threat, done in fictional form.

If you are attempting to point to a religious club, you are not merely reporting, you are selling and a sales pitch is an apology, not neutral reporting.