Is it possible to live without faith by focusing only on facts?

Faith in general. No.

Anything you do starts with an assumption. Having faith you/they will acomplish what is set out to do.

As long as there is a percentage of risk you will need faith.

Faith is everything to me! It is the foundation of my life!

Faith, in the way it is colloquially used, is a religious attribute that justifies belief in ideas that would otherwise be dismissed. In that sense it is worthless, since any belief that would rationally be rejected should be rejected.

However if you define faith as belief in something unproven, then it is vital. So little is able to be proven in the strictest of senses, that you would end up believing only a handful of scientific facts and philosophical axioms. A person must always believe a number of things that are unproven, but these beliefs should be based on an educated guess of the probabilities involved rather than intuition or faith.

For example, I plan to get the train to work tomorrow because I believe it will be on time (or close enough). This is not a wild hope, it is a judgement based on previous experience and the resultant probabilities. If there were rumours of a train workers’ strike, I might drive instead, since the probability of the train providing reliable transport would be drastically reduced.

@FireMadeFlesh
Great answer. I think that pretty much covers everything.

It’s certainly not practically feasible to live without assumptions of any kind. The question is then whether that’s what you mean by “faith”, or you mean something else.

Here is the faith test. If you are willing to blindfold yourself and cross the freeway at rush hour based on the faith that you will not get hit by a truck, then faith must have some value. If you think it would be prudent to look first, or even not do it because it is dangerous, then facts are the way to go. Most reasonable people would choose the latter. You tell me.

It also depends on what you mean by “live”.

As with many things, the best solution lies somewhere in the middle of the extremes. Using intellect (facts, proven knowledge, etc.) along with intuition (gut feeling, instinct, faith, etc.) can result in insight much more helpful than if you limit your basis on facts or faith alone.

However, each individual has their own “comfortable place” on that spectrum between the two, and it’s often closer to one end than the other.

You have to live in the real world,but there is nothing wrong with alittle faith for things science has not yet explained.

@truecomedian, I think it depends on how you define “faith.”

When some people use that word, they basically mean “trust.” I don’t think you could go through life without trusting anybody, or any institution for that matter. This doesn’t mean you can’t be skeptical if a trusted source says something that sounds fishy, and it doesn’t mean you can’t examine the evidence yourself.

Sometimes “faith” means “hope.” I think hope is pretty important, but perhaps it’s possible to live without it. Personally, I’m very hopeful for the future, at least in broad strokes.

But if you mean faith in the existence of an invisible spirit/deity, then yes, it’s absolutely possible to live without that.

We all rely on faith, or belief, to some extent, to form our individual world view. Whether it is our faith in deity or deities, or our belief that a scientific theory is sound, we all start with the same basic faith: the faith that what we percieve is what our senses are sensing.

To live in totality one must embrace all facets of our being.

To live only in the land of facts, logic and sensory perception is as lopsided as to only inhabit the land of faith and faith alone.

@Yetanotheruser, faith in a deity is totally different from belief that a scientific theory is sound.

You might as well be comparing someone who believes the Earth is round to someone who believes that fairies built the pyramids.

Everything is disputable.

@Qingu, the main point of my post is not faith versus rationalism. Whether one considers oneself an extreme true believer, or an extreme rationalist, there is the starting point that we must all have faith in our senses. We assume an external reality, meaning there is a real world that is external to our mind and senses, and that it exists whether or not we as observers exist, and whether or not we are observing it. This external reality can not be proven, except through our senses. The problem with proving it is that in spite of common reference points of agreement, I have no way of proving the existence of anything without relying implicitly on my subjective experience. Therefore I take a lot of things on faith.

Everyday I wake up I have to re-connect with the uncertainty of the day and that takes having faith in almost everything I think or do. It then comes down to the individual as to whether that faith is bolstered by belief in a higher power, ones own abilities and or interaction with others. My faith also hinges on whether the car starts or how many cups of coffee it takes to get through the day.

I see I see. Yis, I agree with that—we all have similar starting “axioms.”

If you live by only that which is indisputable, you will live with nothing, for nothing is indisputable.

Most people live by what is predictable. It is certainly possible to live by the probabilities without resort to faith, whatever that is.

@lucillelucillelucille
Unless you are a scientist and it’s your job to explain those things, of course. :)

I also think that for non-scientists who still care very much about only believing things that are true such as yours truly and many others here, deciding what to believe about things nobody really knows is a bad idea.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Reality is not disputable. It is the one thing that is not disputable-.
It is clearly there, or we would not be around to discuss it.
What goes on in the human conceptual conciousness and the resulting conclusions about the nature of reality may be disputable, because mental abstractions are not always connected to a fact in reality. Dreams, hallucinations, bad ideas, sloppy assumptions-all of these are activities of the faculty that we call mind, but they do not have a corresponding fact in reality. To the extent that a person is disciplined with their epistemology is the extent to which their abstractions are an accurate representation of reality. The closer you get to making your abstractions the same as reality, the closer you get to being maximally effective as a human being.

Almost all humans are on a quest to find meaning and purpose asking why-questions.

I’m surprised this thread is so short after six hours. This kind of question usually attracts many long winded responses on both sides of the fence. Facts and faith don’t play well together.

My whole life has been a matter of opinion, now I just listen to myself! ;-/ ‘fact‘!

I have faith in nothing and I have very little trust in my interpretations of the world. Hope is for those who can’t distinguish patterns. The last time I checked, I am still living.

I think this question assumes that people need to have feeling of certainty about the nature of the world even when somethings are beyond knowing. I don’t think this is true. Certainty is a fine thing when it is justified, but misplaced certainty is nothing but trouble. When certainty comes from faith alone this is an admission that a feeling of certainty is more important than the pursuit of knowledge and honest learning. My dedication to learning means that yes, I do live free of baseless faith, this is the only way I can truly and honestly pursue understanding.

I live knowing that my knowledge is incomplete but that the views I do hold are based on good evidence and well supported. I make the best choices I can with what I can, knowing that in the future new knowledge may alter my understanding and the choices I make. This is a good thing. I’m not interested in holding on to old practices and opinions once they have been shown to be incomplete or flawed.
.

I make myself aware when I am relying on “faith” (meaning ‘hope’ and not ‘religious conviction’) and therefore don’t take it very seriously.

In my experience as a therapist, people who believe nothing but facts, are very unhappy.
As far as I could withness, it is due to the “sterilisation” of life they enforce on themselfs.

Let’s ask: what is a fact? for example, we can take the giant ball of fire hanging in outer space we call “Sun”, if I was to tell you there is a giant ball of fire hanging in the sky you would not believe me. But you do have faith that the sun is a giant ball of fire in outer space. Why do I call it faith? because despite the fact that the sun was “proved” to be a giant ball of fire, you have no proof it is true! you haven’t withnessed the proof yourself, nor did yo meet the person who proved it to see that he is right in his head, nor did you ever check how it was proven! No one was ever really on the sun and despite that, you believe that the sun is so because you, all of us, were told so repeatedly since childhood.
Think about it, it could be the world’s greatest lie…

I hear a lot of people saying they don’t believe in something that they can’t prove, without really experiencing it. Like Reiki energy, for example: I have proof it exists because I have felt it many times and had withnessed the effect of it. The people who deny Reiki, are usually people who have not tried to experience it, they base on the facts as they know them. Sometimes we don’t have all the facts, even when we think we do, science finds new facts almost everyday!

It is important to understand that as humans, we don’t have all the facts, that’s why we need faith and belief. How do we know what to believe? that’s a topic for a new question….

@Marva, it could be the world’s greatest lie that the sun is a giant ball of nuclear explosions… but then, a lot of other, separate, things would also have to be lies. You’d also have to believe in some alternative explanation for what the sun is, and what if that explanation contradicts other things you’ve seen and heard?

I don’t believe the sun is a giant ball of plasma on “faith,” because I’m blindly trusting authority; I believe it because I have evaluated all explanations on the table and this one fits the most evidence and makes the most sense.

How exactly would you define Reiki energy? It’s easy to say you experienced something without actually specifying what it is, or how it works, or what it’s made of. But the word “energy” actually has a pretty specific meaning—what is it, to you?

@Qingu I am sorry to have uppset your feelings. My suggestions about the sun and reiki, were only exampels set to bring through a point of how I see things. If you think faith is redundant in your life, and it works for you, that’s fine with me..

I think some forms of “faith” we just take for granted as fact. Because it has shown such consistency over time.

We fly on planes. They more often then not, consistently land. But some crash. You can be positive, you can be comfortable with the consistent fact of it landing. But there is still risk. You get past that risk (fear) by having “faith” (trust). That being faith in the system.

Um, you didn’t upset my feelings… trust me, you can’t

@Qingu

Are you above or below feeling?

Below would signify a disconnect, above, from an egoic place would signify arrogance and a hardend egoic state.

ABOVE…in terms of enlightenment, well….that’s a whole different ballgame.

I have faith that most people are, in general, the good guys.
I have faith that, when things seem at their worst, they will soon get better.
I have faith that there will always be people who love me.
I have faith that the Earth will continue to go round the sun, the wind will continue to blow, rain will fall and there will be a tomorrow. At least for a good few million years yet.

That’s good enough for me.

my answer: nope. you even have to have faith/unproven trust in your own opinion. for example, you have to have faith that your memories are accurate, that what you see ahead of you is real, that your personal goals, both small and large, are achievable. you’re kinda deep in the faith-hole from the moment you’re alive.

@downtide

Excellent!

And I have absolute ‘faith’ that an attitude like that is in ‘fact’ the pinnacle of emotional health. ;-)

Sometimes (most) you just have to say F it.

@Marva “In my experience as a therapist, people who believe nothing but facts, are very unhappy.”

I’m curious, of all of your clients, how many of them are unhappy? Is unhappiness a trait of those that care about facts or just people that seek therapy?

It used to be common knowledge among psychologists that homosexuality caused depression and mental illness as well. Then a psychologist met a bunch of queers that didn’t go to therapy and were perfecting happy and well adjusted. At this moment he realized that judging a group exclusively by those who seek therapy results in a sampling error.

@Coloma ”@Qingu Are you above or below feeling?”

Failure to get upset by a disagreement doesn’t not mean Qingu is beyond feelings (though your statement indicates you expect intellectual disagreements to have an emotional factor as significant as the intellectual one). Feelings are the manifestations of the complex neuro-chemistry of our brains and their response to stimuli. You can’t be above or below that. Emotions are a fact of life, they serve a purpose, but they serve a different purpose than reason. Favoring one over the other or suggesting that one is favorable to the other is to overlook that they have completely different functions. The idea that commitment to reason is to sacrifice feeling is a false dichotomy. You don’t have to pick one, and it’s a really bad idea to try. Feelings can’t help you in an honest debate and you can’t reason your way into love.

I don’t think the word faith should be thrown out because religious people use it in trying to justify their insanity. To let foolishness define language only encourages the problem.

Intelligence consists of more than just logic. You rarely have the time or the resources for thorough analysis and experimentation when making even very important decisions. You have to go with your intuition much if not most of the time. The key is to find a way to make your intuition as reliable as possible, which you must use logic to do.

Larger social matters, however, should be based completely on logic. Politicians should be replaced entirely by scientists. No “faith” of any kind should go into decisions that effect large numbers of people, even if it appears to be the majority’s “faith.” The only ideal in social concern should be “apply the scientific method.”

@FireMadeFlesh, do you differentiate between having faith that the train will come and having confidence? Are they the same thing?

I have no faith in legends and myths, but I do have faith that the facts of the universe are just waiting to be discovered.

@downtide -I like your answer:)

@Coloma, definitely above. Elitist here. :)

Actually, it’s more that I don’t really get offended by what strangers who don’t know me say on the internet. I do have feelings!

@fundevogel

My question was asked with honest intention, it had nothing to do with ‘expectations’ of emotional attachment to debate. My question indicates nothing other than a curiosity.

@Qingu

I feel the same…and, I appriciate your ‘elite’ humor.
Thanks for clarifying without over reactivity getting in the way. ;-)

@Coloma “My question indicates nothing other than a curiosity.”

Perhaps but you seemed pretty sure he was being emotional in his previous comment which was strange given the content. That’s where you responded to a post about the nature of the sun and energy with “I am sorry to have uppset your feelings”.

That’s the other reason I questioned your assumptions about Qingu and the relationship between reason and emotion. He gave you a post about the sun and energy and you immediately responded that he must be upset. You didn’t respond to what he actually said you simply reacted as if the fact that he offered his disagreement indicated he was upset. It’s as if you thought that any decision to express disagreement equaled a negative emotional response.

We can all disagree without getting hot and bothered (at least some of the time). And of course the fact that Qingu wasn’t upset doesn’t mean he’s emotionless, but then he’s already covered that.

@evandad Perhaps it matters where one’s faith is placed. It may not always be religious or theological in nature, but faith in one’s own intuition, judgment, inner voice, or even in another person.

@fundevogel

There was no assumption, I asked a clear and direct question and I received a clear answer.

Perhaps it is you that has made the assumptions…that is where clarity and direct communication comes into play.

I only responed to the response of being unable to upset @Qingu

The ‘sorry if I upset you’ was from @Marva
I think you got lost in translation. lol

Yes, if you are asking about faith in God.

It’s a hard word to discuss as there is no verb form . I have attended lectures on this one word. I think everyone has faith in something or someone at sometime in their life where there are no hard facts to promote such faith. That faith is not necessarily focused on God or an unseen, unheard presence.

I believe in facts and in cause and effect. That means I assume that certain things are very likely to happen, as in the sun rising tomorrow morning and setting tomorrow evening. I fully expect it will rise in the East, and set in the West. I recognize it might not happen. Some day, probably billions of years in the future, it won’t happen. But I fully expect that tomorrow it will happen and I make my plans accordingly. If you want to call that operating on faith, be my guest. But if you mean by faith, beliveing a sky daddy is making the sun rise and intercedes on Earth to determine what happens day to day, no. I have no faith in things of that sort.

@ETpro

I don’t believe in a ‘sky daddy’ either..but..I DO believe in a higher power, call it what you will.

Whats the dif between believing in the possibility of alien life, extraterrestials..or..a ‘God’ form?

‘God’ would be an extraterrestial….this is what I find amusing about non-believers of something greater than themselves.

Calling something ‘God’, having faith, is viewed as archaic…but…believing in UFO’s, the potentiality of life in other universes is science?

And yes…even the sun will die…maybe tomorrow, maybe not for another 5 million years…nobody knows, a meteor could splatter us all back into cosmic mud tonight.

@Coloma I don’t believe in a higher power—other than the law that orders the universe. I don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa, ghosts, unicorns, dragons, griffins, sphinxes and I could go on and on. I don’t believe in extraterrestrials either. I am open to evidence that any or even all of them exist. So far, I have seen none that stood up to careful inspection.

Yeah…well..I knew I was going out on a limb there. lol

@Coloma No problem. I respect your beliefs. Just saying what mine are.

@Coloma – Whoops, I did get my posts crossed. Thanks for correcting me, that does put your question into a more jocular light. Sorry about that.

@fundevogel

Not an issue. :-)

@ETpro

I respect your right to beleive as you choose, a non-issue as well. :-)

@truecomedian I expect that you are a “true believer” and that you hoped to hear that all people who believe in what can be seen and evaluated deep down feel a burning need to have faith in G_d to feel secure in there lives.

It looks like your expectations were not met!

@Jeruba In my response, I was working under various definitions other people use in order to cover all bases. Personally, I define faith as a religious belief in a concept or an idea that a person would like to believe but has no other basis for doing so.

In the example of the train, I would call it confidence, or an expectation, but the point of the analogy is that such a belief is based on experience and probabilities rather than a religious legend or purely wishing that it were true.

If I held up a pint of beer and asked everyone in the world what it was, most people would agree it’s a beer but everyone can’t agree in the same god. There can be more truth in a beer than someone’s faith in a particular god. Wow that’s heavy. Our individual perspectives on this beer, does not alter the beer. Reality must be absolute or close, regardless of how much truth we can gather, it doesnt change reality.

@truecomedian I would revise your statement, and say that we can have more confidence in a beer than in the existence of a god. There are as many gods as there are religious people, since each invents their own based on their perspective. There is no universal standard (i.e. a real entity) with which to compare these conceptions, while there is a degree of universal agreement on what constitutes a good beer.

@evandad – Facts and faith do play well together as long as we don’t turn off critical thinking. Here’s an interesting fact: almost all scientists have faith that the natural laws work the same way tomorrow.

@mattbrowne, only if you define “faith” extremely broadly.

I wouldn’t call “conclusion drawn based on 100% of available evidence” an expression of faith. For the same reason, juries don’t have “faith” that suspects are innocent or guilty based on evidence thereof.

@FireMadeFlesh

I would revise your statement as well.

There is only one ‘God’....but, as you mention, the one is perceived in many different ways.

I’d say there IS a universal standard for those that believe in ‘God’...the disparities are within the MANMADE perceptions.

@Qingu – There’s no evidence for a level 4 multiverse with different natural laws, yet many scientists have faith that these other universes exist, because they can explain the stunningly improbable fine tuning of ours. The only evidence we got is quantum interference as for example shown by the double-slit experiment. But even the conclusion is just a hypothesis: the many world interpretation i.e. a level 3 multiverse with the same set of laws.

Science is always evolving and changing. The beauty of science is to be able to update the data.

What was true yesterday might not be true today. What we see as fact today, we have “FAITH” it will stand true tomorrow. ;-)
We never lock any “theory” into absolute. Providing wiggle room to revise.

Hopefully that revision will not be so great as to cause harm. As we see happen with the pharmaceutical companies from time to time.

Yes, we should endeavor to explain the unexplained. We should inspire young people encouraging them to enroll in science and engineering fields. We need plenty of new ideas. We need visions. We also need purpose. We also need meaning.

@mattbrowne, perhaps you should define “evidence.” I think if “explains observable phenomena well” is a kind of evidence. Different branches of science have different models of evidence and proof.

That said, you are talking about one of several interpretations of quantum mechanics, yes? I don’t even think anyone believes in this interpretation, certainly not in the same way that we all believe the earth revolves around the sun, or that if I jump off a cliff I won’t float away. Your original point was that using logical induction was a form of “faith,” which I criticized as defining faith too broadly… but interpretating quantum mechanics is another matter entirely, since it’s not even really a belief but just an acknowledged mere possibility by the people who propose it.

@perspicacious & @mattbrowne – I was generalizing. I don’t like to get specific on this subject because it usually evolves into that long winded area I referred to earlier and I’m bored with chasing my tail.

@evandad The mental image brings a smile

@fundevogel I have a feeling you could very well be one of those people I was talking about :)

@Marva Unhappy? That isn’t something I aspire to.

@fundevogel No one aspires to be unhappy, but if I understood correctly from your words, you believe in basing on facts alone, and deny faith as relevant, so I ask you: Are you happy?

@Marva – Why wouldn’t I be? (That’s a yes). As I pointed out before your assumption that holding to facts over faith is a recipe for depression is based on a sampling error, probably one you didn’t notice because it supported what you already thought. That’s what happened with the therapists that though homosexuality cause mental problems.

Frankly it shows a lack of intellectual integrity to hold ideas because they make you feel good rather than because they are good ideas. I would sacrifice comfort if that comfort came from deception.

@fundevogel your discussion with me is very agressive, arogant, and accusing, I don’t believe I had earned such behavior in any way!

I disagree with you. I never had this theory in mind, I noticed it with several patients. most of the people who come to me (I am a holistic therapist and not a psychologist) come to grow their personal happiness through self awarness. I had noticed that people who tend to rely only on facts, do not accept intuition, inner gut feelings and such, on the contrary, they deny them, which leads them to decide everything on the bases of facts, thougths and concepts they have about what can and cannot be true, sometimes betray their own heart by not recognising where it lies. That leads to unhappiness.
Also, at the same accordance these people didn’t believe in God, the univerese, or any other order of things, I don;t think believing in god is a condition for happiness, but not believing in some or any sense in this life, made these people feel alone, and life seem without any purpose to them.
Myself, I feel so much purpose in this existance, I feel a part of a greater goal, I see order in this universe and it fills me with much happiness. I defintly believe in many things I cannot prove because I can feel them, I am the opposite of a skepticist, but not because I believe in what anyone tells me, but because I am always open to let new truths reveal themselfs and I am aware that there are many possibilities I am not aware of and science might still reveal..

@fundevogel Also, I never said holding to facts over faith is a “recipe for depression”

@fundevogel, as someone who’s good at being misunderstood, i sympathize with @Marva‘s plight. I don’t think s/he meant it in the sort of offensive way that you think.

I’ve seen the sort of fact based person who fits the description from earlier, where they focus so strongly on sterilized facts that it impacts their happiness. I’ve seen people in this state, I’ve seen people leave this state. I agree completely. But @Marva you can’t go around accusing people of being depressed because they like facts.

If I could add to your perspective, what I’ve observed is that it’s not just facts period. It’s specifically the wrong set of facts. I really like your use of the word “Sterilized” actually. The sort of facts that one might focus on that will definitely bring down your mood would be things like: “Anything could kill me today if I’m not careful.”.. yes, it’s a fact that anything could hypothetically kill you. but if you focus only on that fact while ignoring the the other facts such as that you’re more likely to survive the day than that you are to die or that anything can hypothetically kill you but only a specific chain of events can actually meet that requirement.. if you do this, you’ll eventually end up being someone with an over-abundance of time spent on restrictive thought processes.

I don’t think I’m explaining this very well, but I’m trying to say that it’s a matter of fallaciously focusing too heavily on unimportant and pessimistic facts that causes the depression you’ve observed. not just a pursuit of facts themselves.

In my opinion, anyone who’s really serious about the pursuit of facts will end up more like me. And I’d have to count myself as a pretty fuggin’ happy person!

Good post Collin, this one is a bit redundant after yours.

@Marva “Also, I never said holding to facts over faith is a “recipe for depression”

No, you said “people who believe nothing but facts, are very unhappy.” To me this statement indicates that there is a causative correlation between “holding facts over faith” and depression. I’m not sure why you would have said this if that isn’t what you meant.

That’s why I’ve been aggressive. Though I don’t think I deserve to be called arrogant or accusing. I have not attacked you personally or insulted you in anyway. I just challenged ideas that you have made public and open for discussion. I found your statement to be a brash and overly broad judgment against people like me. It implies that the principles which I hold dear are worth sacrificing because of the assumptions you make about them. It’s true. I get pissed when people decide that they know who I am and what is wrong with me based on one simplistic assumption regarding a single aspect of my personality.

@Marva I’m a facts based sort, and remain very happy and love life even in stressful situations where others around me are coming completely unglued. Perhaps your observation is based on the population you are sampling. If you asked a dentist what percentage of their visitors have a toothache, you’d probably find that maybe 10% of them did. You couldn’t extrapolate that to the general population, though. People seek the dentist because their tooth is hurting. As a holistic practitioner specializing in promoting happiness, of course you see people who aren’t happy. They seek your services for that very reason. You can’t then project your client demography onto the general population.

It’s all about balance as I mentioned above.

In this respect I agree that there are many very rigid personalities that are completely driven by logic alone and cut off from their emotions and and intuition.

I promote living in totality, to be fully integrated mentally, emotionally and ‘spiritually’, whatever that means to you.

I think this is more of a male issue…women are usually much more integrated and in touch with energies that many men dismiss.

Extreme rigidity is an unhappy way to live.

@Coloma I’ll leave that one alone for another discussion.

@fundevogel Well, it does seem like you want a fight. You won’t get it.

I think my comment pissed you off, made you feel like I was a person who “decided that they know who you are and what is wrong with you based on one simplistic assumption regarding a single aspect of your personality” is because I was very right.
That’s because up untill the moment you jumped to swallow me, I never knew you existed.. so I don’t see another reason you would take my post so personally…

Basically, I don’t understand why you, ar any of the few that became so pissed @ my post, took it so personally: I never said anything like “basing on facts leads to depression”, I merely said that it was my experience as a therapist, that people who base only on facts and deny faith tend to be unhappy. It is my experience as a therapist, you cannot change that no matter how much you shout…

And thank you @ninjacolin both for your support, but also for the wonderful clarification: the people I was reffering to, did tend to base on only a part of the facts, which I would define as some sort of Pasimism, b.t.w I believe pasimists are also usually unhappy people… what do you think?

@Qingu – Evidence as understood here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

@Marva, I don’t think your posts “pissed” anyone off. Perhaps you could dispense with the psychoanalysis over the internet?

@FireMadeFlesh

Well…I certainly appriciate you letting me off the hook for my sharing, which is really without argument.

But..I’m sure you’ll come up with something.
Egos that exceed the size of Rhode Island have a hard time staying on the down low, sooo, tell ya what..let’s just get it out of the way now..you are right, you are always right, and you will always be right!

There, now that we’ve covered that…whew! lol

@Coloma “There is only one ‘God’....but, as you mention, the one is perceived in many different ways.”
You made a factual claim, and one that needs supporting. My comment was intended to show that I acknowledge your revision of my statement, do not agree with it, but also do not wish to digress too far from the intent of the thread.
“Egos that exceed the size of Rhode Island…”
This has nothing to do with ego. You make it sound as if belief is a subjective, personal opinion that cannot be argued either way. I contend that every belief, rational or otherwise, is open for debate and is free to be challenged.

@FireMadeFlesh

Nope, not saying that beleif cannot be argued with.

I am responding to my most recent post and your comment of letting it go for now.

If you are instead referring to the prior one…okay, whatever.

I am just saying ( with humor to make MY point ) that..seriously..check yo’ bad self out…
your reply was an egoic one…it was condescending…a ’ Well..I’ll let this one go for now…’ lolol

Whats to disagree with…I am presenting ‘facts.’

The ‘fact’ is that ‘God’ is in the eye of the perceiver and the ‘fact’ is…many men are distanced from their intuitive ( spiritual side )...

@perspicacious – I’d rather be chasing yours.

@Coloma I apologise if I have misinterpreted you. It was never my intention to come across in the way I did, and unfortunately I have let some of my recent posts become coloured by external issues. Peace.

@FireMadeFlesh

Cool

Double cool on the awareness.

Stop me if you’ve heard this before. Wow, what a great question, more so, all the responses, fuck it, it makes me feel good about myself to create such a stir. Thank you for all the le coup de maître.