it is not special pleading because the exception is justified since evidence for religion
Well I was responding to a bare claim, so it was a special pleading fallacy.
how we go about investigating a religion is not the same as other things
The method for investigating a religion is wholly different from the scientific method..
Two bare claims that tell what it is not, but tells me nothing about this method you referred to?
The method does not involve putting oneself in a suggestible and biased state. It involves being open-minded but also involves scrutiny.
Two more bare claims.
People should never take anyone else's word for anything and that is why I have no burden of proof to prove anything to anyone.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the initial statement sorry, all claims carry an epistemological burden of proof. Otherwise we can claim literally anything, and even contradictory claims.
If you want to know HOW to independently investigate the Truth, you can watch this short video. It is only five minutes long.
I watched it through and it made little sense to me sorry, what does "the truth is the truth is the truth" even mean? The narrator keeps mentioning truth as you and others do, as if it something you have, and is absolute, but can't be demonstrated. Something is true if it is accordance with fact or reality, but you have demonstrated no facts?
the video makes a lot of claims, like the assertion that "a core truth si that god is all about love", but this planting the horse firmly behind the cart, as you'd first have to demonstrate that a deity exists, and again nothing you have said offers a shred of objective evidence, so the claim has no objective value?
It challenges other religions, but then so do most religions, especially monotheisms, and it seems presuppositional to me, so as I said starting from the inherently bias position that a deity exists, rather than challenging that claim. Which is ironic as you and the video suggest I should not just accept the beliefs of others, I don't need any religious beliefs for that.
It asserts repeatedly that "each person is individually responsible for discovering the truth for themselves".
This would be the very definition of basing a belief on subjective opinion, and the phrase "the truth" which is repeated like a mantra seems rather silly to me, can I determine if a complex mathematical proof is correct on my own? Can I ascertain if species evolution is true on my own? Or whether complex scientific theories that an entire lifetime of scrutiny by someone with a sufficient intellect and expertise couldn't hope to entirely understand? That's a preposterous idea, though i can see the appeal some people may find in that idea, I find it more than a little facile sorry.
4:29 "They should never believe something just because it has been told to them by a "so called expert"."
So you guys don't see doctors then? Or take your car to a mechanic? that's demonstrably absurd, expertise can be challenges and questioned of course, but we live in an era where we have to accept that people specialise in specific areas of knowledge.
The video didn't offer me anything but vague platitudes, and unevidenced assertions sorry? I'm none the wiser about what your belief in a deity is based on?
There is objective evidence but it is not testable and falsifiable the way the scientific method works.
If it's not testable or falsifiable then I'd suggest it can't be objective, but again you have made the claim it exists, but failed to demsonrate it? I feel like I am chasing my tail here. I don't care what it is not like or similar to either.
You believe a deity exists yes?
Could you please demsonrate the most compelling objective reason or evidence that you think supports that belief?
This method does not involve peer review because it is an independent investigation
So it is subjective opinion by definition.
we do not want to be influenced by other people, nor do we need other people to approve or agree with the results of our investigation.
That seems very closed minded to me. Ringfencing beliefs off from scrutiny hardly suggests they are robustly investigated. You may not care, but again one can believe literally anything if it isn't based on objective and falsifiable evidence, and worse still we never submit it to the scrutiny of others.
we want to come to our own conclusions, independent of others.
What one wants to believe is not necessarily true, or in accordance with reality, and if one insists it is not just true, but
"the truth", and then ringfences it from all scrutiny and criticism then that is the very definition of closed minded.
