but I think your assumption in that fifth paragraph leaves out the idea of faith
If there was true faith, where is the risk in testing it, and why get upset when people disagree on what is ultimately unprovable? I am not excluding that it isn't possible, but to me it looks far more like people have doubts and their faith in god to take them away isn't strong enough, so they avoid investigating it themselves.
Faith should be like a science or a skill, tested. People arguing against a belief isn't the test, the test is in the response. And, only the individual can be the judge. As said, behind closed doors, when no one is witness, is the integrity in the faith still there? Or is a person avoiding to really investigate that question, just in case it is not?
I have nothing against people believing in a god, even though I do not. However, I am happy to be proven wrong, but no person can provide the evidence to do so.
I get what you are saying, but I think at some point the evidence may never be there, which is where faith comes in. I feel the same way about the arguing. I'm definitely open to different points of view, but ultimately I have faith in what I believe, so arguing to the point of contention isn't worth it.
I don't think it can be there by design. My argument is generally that many people have faith, but don't necessarily act according to their beliefs.
Well that isn't anything new! Lots of people do really bad things in the name of religion for sure.