Religion - genuine belief or educated to believe

There is no such thing as "perceptional objectivity."You are correct that when someone says they like chocolate ice-cream, then it is an objective fact (if they're not lying) that the person likes chocolate ice-cream at that time. However, this is not "perceptual objectivity".The word 'objective' means "independent of the observer.""Prefering chocolate over vanilla" is subjective because not all people prefer chocolate over vanilla."I like chocolate ice-cream," if I'm not lying, is objective because you observe my claim as much as onifre or anyone else does."Prefering God over Allah" is subjective. It's a preference."God exists" is a claim to reality. However, not all observers agree. Therefore it cannot be an objective claim, in any sense of the word "objective." I know you were joking... but I'm going to use this statement to clarify objectivity/subjectivity a bit more:"Appetizing" is a subjective concept, it is different for everyone.
It is impossible for "the dog crap" to be universally objectively appetizing (or objectively unappetizing, for that matter).
It is possible for "the dog crap" to be objectively appetizing for onifre (sorry dude... all in the name of clarity! )
It is possible for "the dog crap" to be objectively unappetizing for Stile.As for your friends who belive in God: The fact that you used the phrase "in their eyes" means that it is impossible for whatever-you're-talking-about to be objective. Such a phrase means that the conclusion depends on their (the observer's) thoughts and therefore is not objective by definition.They certainly can come to conclusions that they believe are true from some objective observations. But if their conclusions are not independent of the observer, then their conclusions are not objective.Objective observations do not necessarily lead to objective conclusions. The entire point of the scientific method is to ensure (as much as humanly possible) that we get objective conclusions from objective observations.Example:Objective observation: Rainbows are a bunch of colours seen in the sky.Subjective conclusion: Rainbows are from God.
Subjective conclusion: Rainbows are from Odin.
Subjective conclusion: Rainbows are from my dad.Objective conclusion: Rainbows are from sunlight refracting through raindrops.I can even say that "Rainbows are from God" is objective. But that doesn't make it objective, that just makes me wrong. The same with your friends, they can say "God exists" is reached through objectivity, but they are wrong."God exists" is a subjective conclusion that may or may not be partially based on objective observations.Anything "reached through objectivity" must be independent of all observers. Otherwise the claim is simply incorrect by definition of the word 'objective.'

As, Stile, pointed out in his post, they are simply wrong.They used no objective evidence for their subjective belief. But the point is that you don't actually decide when it comes to flavors and colors. Your sensory receptors "decide" for you based on what stimulates them in different ways, making, say the "taste" of chocolate, more favorable than vanilla.Jesus and Allah are simply decided over by purely subjective measures. There are no sensory receptors favoring one over the other. It is a subjective decision based on many outside factors (ie. geographical location, tradition, culture, etc).So, you're body is not saying that chocolate is better than vanilla, it is telling you that it favors one "taste" over the other because one stimulates more than the other. If I would enjoy the tatse of it, it would simply be because my sensory receptors favor the taste, and not because I just chose to like it with no basis for the decision.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Thanks. I see both your points.