24 votes

Organized divide and conquer on the DP?

Over the past week or so, I've noticed a rash of nonsensical threads dedicated to insane conspiratorial theories about Christianity; a sizeable portion of the DP being Christian (no idea of the percentage, but quite a few), this seems to almost be a concerted effort to drive a wedge in between all of us.

EDIT

Let me make this clear - this is not just becuase I'm a Christian. I am immensely irritated by threads bashing an entire group of people on the DP, be it the write-ins vs. the GJ guys, atheists taking potshots at religion, religious folk taking potshots at atheism, etc. The entire reason I joined the DP was to encourage and be encouraged in the pursuit of liberty. I'm all for talking about difficult issues, but honestly, I'm don't feel like the DP is the place to go actively attacking and discrediting huge sections of the members. I brag to people about how the Liberty movement brings everyone together, regardless of creed, and how we're not afraid to discuss tough issues, yet still respect one another. Yet, here we are, with threads actively ATTACKING entire groups. WTH, DPers?!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There is division, but no conquering on DP.

We were brought together by teachings of Ron Paul, a large group of people who have little in common other than our person definition of liberty and our disgust with the status quo. Ron Paul, if the Republican Nominee, would have kept us together. Ron could have kept us more together after his defeat if he had given us specific marching orders as some have been lookinf for: stay home, write my name in, vote for Gary, vote for Virgil.

The one who brought us together is also the one who has split us up. Ron has never been one to tell people what to do and leaves the choice up to each individual.

ecorob's picture

you can't divide and conquer the DP...

we are too committed!

too smart, too, to fall for "anything" like a new flavor of the month or something as devisive as religion or, god forbid, politics!

Ron Paul
2012
Accept no substitute!

also, accept no bs

are YOU listening?

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

The real problem

Is the Johnsonite plague on the board that has driven a wedge into this community since their arrival by shoving their beliefs down everyone's vote, registering multiple accounts, and mass-downvoting those who have not given up on principle.

I don't even not like Gary Johnson, but holy hell stop acting like he has any more of a shot at winning than Ron Paul.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

last major johnsonite thread

was started by a guy who is a member here for over 4 years.

http://www.dailypaul.com/258383/most-of-those-objecting-to-g...

doesn't quite tie in with your theory

.

Believe me there are hundreds of liberal dems that came here after obamma signed for the bailouts, in early 09, even befre so just because they have been here a few years means nothing..
They found a pleasant home at the DP because they did not understand conservative fiscal policy when it comes to gvt and they never understood the role of gvt and how the Constitution plays a vital role.
They have now found a friend in GJ who pays them lip service to the constitution "sometimes" and they accept and fight for a piece of he pie.

The problem with that is real liberty accepts nothing less then THE ENTIRE PIE!
They settle for much less and do so for many confused reasons but those reasons take their deep roots for where they once came from and it explains their rabid defense of the undefendable, known as GJ.
The GJ supporter is a disaffected lib who could never do what Paul asked of them in the first place.
Join the R party and change it from with in.
These that you hear cry for their 8% are the ones who would vote for obama gleefully if GJ wasnt on the stage.
They are socialists and only liked RP for his foreign policy but learned NOTHING else.
too bad for them.
If they did learn from our DR, they would NEVER be able to look at GJ- let alone vote for him.
Paul cant look at GJ either, he wont stand next to him and keeps his distance from him because Paul knows GJ is DIRTY!
Just like Kucinich. GJ and DK are the same person and the GJ supporter loves BOTH! even though they get sold down the road!!Thats whats so funny about the whole thing! and they excuse it every time!
After the DK AF1 ride with BO and sold out on healthcare, Paul never spoke to DK again.

Libs will sell you out in a minute and they are the core of the GJ base who sold out Ron Paul, because they could never bring themselves to do what Paul asked- and will now be left behind with GJ.
They BLEW it.
Dr. Paul gave them a chance and the GJ supporter blew it.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

That would be relevant...

if they didn't drag their drama into other people's threads.

I don't play, I commission the league.

yep agreed

this thread had nothing to do with gj but some gj haters just couldn't contain themselves* and had to mention him.

*thenung

maybe

i'm always suspicious of those who post divide and conquer threads like abortion and off topic religious threads. i try to not post in them or state my position quickly and leave and not keep said topic alive and bumped to the top. now that dr. paul is not running for president they don't bother me as much. before i saw them as troll post that scared off new members and i felt a need to post a rebuttal so new members did not think we all believed the tripe. i still get sucked into those post but try to restrain myself. the down-voting system helps to have a say without bumping the thread.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

Hmmmm

and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.

. . . . . . _ . . . _ _ .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .

But in the Methodist Church (where I was raised) ....

it was
"Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us."

Probably because we always paid our debts and expected others to pay what debt they owed us.

Take it up..

with the mods who run the place, MN is an absentee landlord these days... sad to say.

yes what an awful

laissez faire attitude he has. he should be micro-managing every thread.

I don't believe so

...but it wouldn't greatly surprise me if a few people were here who probably "shouldn't" be, either.

As far as the Christian conspiracy threads go, I leave those alone; it's just not my area. Can't say anything about them popping up more often since I just 'got back' here about a week ago (moved, no internet).

What concerns me though, is the fact that there are plenty of otherwise intelligent, rational people on this site who accuse anyone who disagrees with them on any given issue of being a shill, sheep, et cetera. Seems as though people are getting less interested in debating and more interested in fighting about writing in Dr. Paul, voting for Gary Johnson, Goode, or whoever else. Of course there's the whole Rand thing to top it off.

I think it's more or less the fact that we come from a very diverse range of political, spiritual, and cultural thought, and some of us are bound to have their "berserk button:" pressed form time to time, given that we're more than an echo chamber...well most of the time anyway.

A signature used to be here!

Balance

Folks tend to hold to their beliefs by varying standards of importance. I like meat but feel some antipathy to the means by which much of it is acquired. At times, the source of that acquisition affects how I choose products, but sometimes I'll grab a combo at a fast-food joint and disregard my beliefs. Just as there are those who profess their faith in Jesus and believe it is sinful to engage in certain activities but choose to conduct themselves contrarily to that belief when challenged.

There are some things, however, that I do not "backslide" on (not as of yet anyway). I refuse to acknowledge that war is justified when there are logical ways to argue against it and moral grounds to prevent it. And I know Christian folks who cuss a sh*t ton but won't attach the name of God to one of those curse words. Some things just carry more weight than others, depending on the individual.

As far as the "preaching" goes, while it can be off-putting, one might be well-served to consider the source so as to understand the motivation underscoring their message. If the body of a movement is it's people and the core it's message, then evangelism is the right arm. I sign off a lot of my rants to people, "But the answer is liberty." That annoys people when I'm critical of the state all the time, because they don't want hear negativity. I'm guilty of being dogmatic, so I can't knock on religious folks incessantly; we're all evangelical in a sense--we're trying to effect a change. It's in our nature. That said, we're all hypocrites too. I'm still quite fond of pulled pork :] I think balance is the key. None of us have "arrived."

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."

Soy is to Cow as Logic is to Religion

If you want to shape soy into a hamburger so you "feel" better about it socially (that's cool) -- Christians have "rock music" during services now too -- I call it "the boca burger effect"

Why can't religion be comfortable with being illogical -- that does not mean the adherents are "always" illogical -- some of them are scientists, mathematicians, and logicial?

Just say what it is -- "this is the time of the day or week when I engage in imaginative practices that are based on emotional-transmutation"

You can derive "energy" from emotions -- that is one definition of religious practice "energy from transmuted emotions"

Belief can be exhilarating -- as can trance-dance (which is far far far older than any world religion) -- you "excite" yourself into a trance or altered-state and it "feels good" -- likely because of a release of DMT or some other naturally occurring internal psychoactive.

When you "deny" that this is why you are in-it or if you ARE in-it to avoid going to hell then THIS is where fanaticism comes from.

My mother's response to why she was "spiritual" -- "because it makes me feel good"

What religious people GOT to stop doing is making the case that in a religious or spiritual moment (or during practice) they are being "rational" or that the justifications for practice are rational.

Telling stories to evoke emotion? That's as old as homo sapien sapiens (maybe even Homo Habilis told stories) -- why books and movies are billion dollar industries.

Ideology always leads to groupism and voting/lobbying (abdication/bribery).

I don't know about you Octo?

But I remember a time here on the DP where a live and let live no matter of beliefs was the theme. It was a bit before it was taken over and occupied by those that insist we all become Christians.

There was a time when it was not encouraged to spam or debate Religion. It had no place or influence on individual liberty on the DP. I Remember this environment that worked so well and prevented flame wars over religion. It appears history repeats it's self.

I hope you have been well my friend.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Nonsense!

There is nothing illogical or nonsensical about Christianity. It is the spiritual equivalent of TANSTAAFL. We accumulate debt spiritually when we do evil. A price must be paid. Christ, God himself, paid the price for our sin, our debt. Only He could do that as the debt is so large. When we understand the debt that was paid for us, understand Original Sin (the nature of man) and the unfathomable Goodness and ultimate Love of God for His creations we become Christian.
But this requires an acceptance of the possibility of reality beyond the material, physical world.

Well you just proved the "religionists become absolutist"

point.

We DO NOT accumulate debt spiritually -- that statement cannot be substantiated without the use of the belief instrument or from the words of an expert "certified" in the art of belief-instrument generalizations and extrapolations. The Belief-Instrument being the Bible.

What WE DO know is that many of the stories of the Bible came from Sumarian and Babylonian Mythos -- the God-Son figure was present almost word for word in the Mahabarata first poemed 600 to 3000 years prior (depending on who does the dating).

You said "when we understand the debt was paid for us...." Then went on to say a very true statement -- to understand this debt, the unfathomable goodness, and Original Sin REQUIRES "acceptance of the possibility of reality beyond the material"

You made my point -- so I don't know what you mean when you started your tare with "Nonsense" -- You made my point, that "religious" belief begins in the illogical "acceptance" of things that cannot be proven on the physical plane; since NOT LOGICAL my argument is that it is emotionally derived.

One only need to go to a Church Service to see that it is emotionally based -- What-to-do based on Fear and What-to-do based on Devotion.

Devotion is Emotion -- it is an altered-state of consciousness.

In truth is Religion has more in common with Trance-Dance and Psychodelic Trips (see Adam Kokesh's DMT trippin videos) then it does with Mechanical Engineering or Computer Science.

AND I have no problem with there being a side to a persons life that is CHALK-FULL of emotional-based / imaginative activities.

I'm just saying, "don't call it logic-based -AND- feel okay about it"

It's good to be creative and fiction out-sells non-fiction all day long.

You cannot have a Lord of the Rings without the staunch Christian John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, nor the Narnia series without the religious convert (thanks to Tolkien) C.S. Lewis. Even though they eventually fell-out (mostly owing to Lewis taking an anti-catholic stance).

Dungeons and Dragons does not exist without Lord of the Rings -- yet late 20th century Christians could only see the "devil" in the card game, hahahaha. Let alone the DIRECT influence the Bible had on the creation of D&D -- particularly the flaming sword in Genesis became the "barrier sword" in D&D.

Let's face it -- there's NO WORK of Western Fantasy Fiction that was NOT inspired or did not borrow from Christian Works -- PERIOD.

Fantasy recognizes Fantasy. "If 'those' men can write an imaginative book of authority and influence, why can't we?"

The Bible was inspired from earlier works -- this is an ABSOLUTE fact.

You don't find it odd that

a lot of cultures have a similar mythology? That perhaps God had been revealing Himself for eons and this revelation was misunderstood or only gradually became understood, perhaps even was intended to be gradually perceived? Man must crawl before he can walk. Perhaps the mythology reflects the Truth that was only later properly understood. It is just as likely as your scenario.
Your post is the typical materialist-absolutism. If you do not perceive something physically, in your view it cannot exist. The spiritual cannot be proven in the physical realm...but thats the beauty part, right? Just insist that God can't exist because you can't prove His existence to the satisfaction of your extremely limited physical and mental capacity.
Truth IS absolute. A thing is true or it is not. Objective morality does exist. Lying, stealing, cheating, murder is wrong. And that is absolute
You do not believe that reality can exist beyond what you sense physically yet evidence to the contrary is all around us. There are colors in the spectrum you cannot physically see, sounds you cannot hear, yet you insist that God cannot exist because it cannot be proven physically.
That you do not see the logical symmetry in the parallels between earthly economics and spiritual "economics", earthly debt and spiritual debt (some others might call it "Karma"?) does not mean it does not exist. Much of what exists in the earthly realm is a reflection of the spiritual one (the Trinity reflecting the family, for example).
Funny you should mention Lewis. He refutes your theory about Christianity being stolen from paganism very well, and he has also been credited for converting more people to Catholicism than anyone else in his era....in spite of his being unable to overcome his anti-Catholic upbringing.
I'm confused as to why you would call me a religious absolutist, clearly intending it to be an insult but then identify yourself as one in your last sentence. What part of the Bible are you talking about?

Why would God require a human sacrifice for sin,

when he made man?

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
-Thomas Paine

A human sacrifice

would not be adequate to atone for the sins of man. That is why God became flesh, to redeem him. For God so loved the world...
There is no free lunch, someone always pays. It is true in the physical world and in the spiritual realm as well.

LOL - TANSTAAFL quote is hysterical

given that it was coined by Robert Heinlein, an avowed Atheist/Agnostic -- meaning he is not a Die-on-the-cross-Christian, regardless his level-aversion to dogma.

Now THAT was a Boca-Burger moment -- looks like a hamburger but it's made from soy, wah wah waaaaaah.

???? Why does that matter?

The concept is true. One need not be a believer OR a nonbeliever. If a thing is true it simply IS.
You are saying that I must ignore truth because it was written by an atheist? I am supposed to dismiss anything an atheist says because he is an atheist???
And the concept of TANSTAAFL pretty much IS dogma....at least to anyone with any sense of natural rights or objective morality.

If a thing is true, it simply IS.

That has got to be the most hypocritical statement ever made in support of religion. That is exactly the statement that killed the whole religion thing for me. Some fantasy wants to tell me hundreds of things that don't make sense in the real world and then just tell me to believe them for reasons that also don't make sense in the social world... and I'm going to run fast and far away from it.

Your other argument above was similarly humorous. You said scientists can't see many wavelengths of light, therefore we shouldn't believe in them. The truth is that we created tools and proved they can see both light and millions of other natural phenomena. Then we place a justified amount of trust in those tools to be our eyes to see every assertion we make. Think of it this way, if you have two water tanks and you want to know how much water is in them do you only trust your gut on the clear tank even though a stick poked into the other one gets wet?

And to the counter you will likely provide for this: If I start having logical problems with the results of all my tests in a project, I start questioning my tools as much as my logic because I have to include even calculator errors in the explanation of why any test failed. All of these types of potential errors will be clearly documented in the final report.

Some people don't believe

in truth, I do. Dr Paul believes in truth, that some things are right and some things are wrong. Why you consider this belief hypocritical is beyond me.
As far as scientific tools to detect things humans cannot detect with their unenhanced senses, is it not possible that some day "tool" may be developed that lets us see into other dimensions (Heaven? Hell?) or God Himself? Nearly every day "science" refutes their earlier absolutes about what they KNOW about the origins of the universe, etc. and their new assertions are pronounced in the exact same "We KNOW this happened 50 billion years ago", etc. There is much speculation but very little actual knowledge. And increasingly, scientists are agreeing that the universe appears to be the result of intelligent design.
Go ahead and refuse to believe in anything but your god "science", but be prepared to be lied to by your materialist god.

Wow. You just have no concept of logic, do you?

Because something is truth, it should be believed as truth? That makes no sense whatsoever. For anything to be truth, it has to be proven. It has to be predictable and testable and repeatable. Religion has none of these.

If science has no chance of developing a tool to see a mythological being, doesn't that lend itself towards that being not existing just as much as if science was faulty in creating said tools? By the way, nice topic shift you did there. My point about the wet stick is that everything from chemistry to plastics to nuclear power and space travel WOULD NEVER BE POSSIBLE if those things touted by creationists as errant actually were errant. You just don't guess close enough on things that can't be seen to hit a teeny-tiny little moon at that distance.

"Nearly every day science refutes their earlier absolutes"... no. They refute their theories. It's a rare occasion and makes global scientific news when someone even posits a theory against an absolute fact. That doesn't happen very often. Since you don't know how things are classified, you should go learn that part before continuing to talk about this stuff.

"increasingly, scientists are ... ID" That's a relative statement. Yes, it's increasing but going from a dozen to 13 in a time period where the global number of scientists rises by millions is a misleading statement. Percentage-wise, ID scientists are virtually extinct. In my anecdotal experience, I know literally hundreds (that's 200-400 to a layman) and not a single one believes evolution to be invalid theory.

When all else fails, I resort to Occam's Razor as a guide. This says that when all else is equal, the simplest solution is the right one. So, which is more likely? That the verified laws of physics we have proven were suspended by a supernatural being which resides in a remote but unfathomable place so that he could prove a point to a tiny group of people and tell them that they need to praise him while others will be damned and that he will be watching every action, thought and word of every person to ever be created, just to make sure they obey him.... Or is it more likely that a couple dozen people made up the story and scammed people successfully by leading through fear for 2000 years before we figured out how to prove it wrong? I'm going with the latter.

The real question should be "Why?" This is by far the most important point. Under religion, people put faith in someone else to do things that they should have taken responsibility to act of their own accord. How many of them walked away from science because of religion when they might have turned out to be the next Newton or Einstein? How many follow the religious sheep into supporting violence from global wars all the way down to individual hate speech? How many make decisions that allow the elite bankers to hold their power over the masses just because of one little Caesar tax statement? In the big scope of things, it is one of the most massive crimes perpetuated on all of humanity.

>>>Because something is

>>>
Because something is truth, it should be believed as truth?<<<<
Yes. Truth is what people should believe, not lies.

>>>That makes no sense whatsoever.<<<<
I have no issue with you believing lies, if you prefer.

>>>For anything to be truth, it has to be proven. It has to be predictable and testable and repeatable.<<<

Actually, science can't prove anything absolutely. They can only say that under certain conditions, certain things happen with a certain degree of reliability. Science cannot verify all things, all conditions, all variables, etc. I doubt any scientist will say that anything is absolutely proven. They can't...although there ARE some crummy "scientists" out there.

>>>>Religion has none of these.<<<<

I can give you one example. The easiest, most verifiable Christian dogma is that of Original Sin. Humans are flawed, follow their own interests, incredibly prone to rationalize and do evil. The exceptions are few and far between and then only in certain areas are people "good".

>>>>>science has no chance of developing a tool to see a mythological being, doesn't that lend itself towards that being not existing just as much as if science was faulty in creating said tools? <<<<<

I think you misread my post. I am saying that it is quite possible that man could some day develop a tool that might enable him to see/perceive God (God is not mythological), just as man has developed spectrometers, etc.

>>>>>By the way, nice topic shift you did there. My point about the wet stick is that everything from chemistry to plastics to nuclear power and space travel WOULD NEVER BE POSSIBLE if those things touted by creationists as errant actually were errant.<<<

Your wet stick metaphor was irrelevant, that was why I ignored it. I am not sure what you mean by "creationist". I believe God created the universe and everything in it.

>>>>> You just don't guess close enough on things that can't be seen to hit a teeny-tiny little moon at that distance.<<<<

What does this have to do with anything? God doesn't guess.

>>>>>>>>"Nearly every day science refutes their earlier absolutes"... no. They refute their theories.<<<<

Their THEORIES (thank you!) that they posit as absolute truth. From global warming to predications of global population "bombs" to wooden cutting boards killing people.

>>>>> It's a rare occasion and makes global scientific news when someone even posits a theory against an absolute fact.<<<<<

I recall when we were taught that there were canals on Mars. They KNEW this. That nothing could live in the deep ocean, that nothing could live in volcanic streams because of the heat. There is a never ending list of scientific pronouncements that are found to be untrue. Which I have no issue with except for the way they assert their theories as fact. It is never "We think" or "Scientists believe". A few nites ago I watched a program that proclaimed that "the Big Bang created the universe". What crap.

>>>>That doesn't happen very often. Since you don't know how things are classified, you should go learn that part before continuing to talk about this stuff.<<<<<

LOL! I'm not "educated" enough, right? More crap.

>>>>>>"increasingly, scientists are ... ID" That's a relative statement. Yes, it's increasing but going from a dozen to 13 in a time period where the global number of scientists rises by millions is a misleading statement. Percentage-wise, ID scientists are virtually extinct. In my anecdotal experience, I know literally hundreds (that's 200-400 to a layman) and not a single one believes evolution to be invalid theory.<<<<

Don't forget your LOGIC now. That is an argument from authority and numbers, neither of which are proof of what is the truth. Need I remind you how many scientists used to believe all manner of nonsense?

>>>>When all else fails, I resort to Occam's Razor as a guide. This says that when all else is equal, the simplest solution is the right one. So, which is more likely?<<<<

Thank you for the tutorial on Occams razor.

>>>>>That the verified laws of physics we have proven were suspended by a supernatural being which resides in a remote but unfathomable place so that he could prove a point to a tiny group of people and tell them that they need to praise him while others will be damned and that he will be watching every action, thought and word of every person to ever be created, just to make sure they obey him.... Or is it more likely that a couple dozen people made up the story and scammed people successfully by leading through fear for 2000 years before we figured out how to prove it wrong? I'm going with the latter.<<<<<

You lecture me to get educated on science and then think you understand theology and exemplify it with this simplistic ridicule? Where's the "spaghetti monster"? God is not in an unfathomable place. He is all around us and in our hearts, if we allow Him. Heaven could very well be simply another dimension, Jesus said His Fathers house has many mansions. Have you ever read the Gospels?

>>>>>The real question should be "Why?" This is by far the most important point. Under religion, people put faith in someone else to do things that they should have taken responsibility to act of their own accord.<<<<<

And science worshipping materialists put their faith in "science". The most responsible people I know are religious people. It is the state and science worshippers who try to mold utopias on earth.

>>>>> How many of them walked away from science because of religion when they might have turned out to be the next Newton or Einstein?<<<

Newton was very religious and Einstein was a believer as well. I suppose they were not good scientists.

>>>>> How many follow the religious sheep into supporting violence from global wars all the way down to individual hate speech?<<<<

How many millions have the atheistic commies killed? I do not condone the Neocon zionist wars and the gullible Christians they have led by the nose. But those people really aren't following what Christ taught.

>>>>>>How many make decisions that allow the elite bankers to hold their power over the masses just because of one little Caesar tax statement? <<<<

Anyone who reads that particular verse can see that Jesus was begging the question. He did not say "Give everything to Caesar" or even "money belongs to Caesar". He said to give unto Caesar that which was Caesars. And that is begging the question: what really belongs to Caesar? Scripture is quite clear that tax collectors are sinners.

>>>>In the big scope of things, it is one of the most massive crimes perpetuated on all of humanity.<<<<

Along with government schooling that has made people Biblically illiterate.

so what? How is it anyone's business but that of the believer

in religion or atheism? Either is a leap of faith.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

There was interesting & respectful religious thread a while back

where quite a few DP members shared what their religious/non-religious beliefs were. For fun I made a list of all the different beliefs that were mentioned and if I remember correctly I counted over 80 different belief systems. We're a pretty diverse group :)

Point is freedom is popular. There are a lot of different belief structures here. I hope people can make peace with that, because we know that through cooperating we will help ensure our rights to follow the dictates of our own conscience unhindered. This helps everyone.

We come here to the DP to learn and to work together to regain and to defend these rights. No one comes here to have their religious/non-religious beliefs ridiculed or mocked, questioned or vilified. Such threads do not serve to bring us together to work towards a common goal. They serve to divide, distract, cause dissension, contention, animosity, and waste valuable time talent and resources towards endless fruitless flame wars and trivial nonsense. Let it go. We are never going to agree on our religious beliefs. That's fine. We'll all work that out individually. We should however be in agreement that we all have the right to believe however we choose. We can work from there. Set aside differences that do not work towards the goal of liberty. Support one another, we're all we have.

Great post!

Thank you! I was once a godless atheist. Faith is a gift from God. Ask and ye shall receive. But be ready for the ridicule and contempt. You are automatically classified as irrational and stupid if you have faith in God. Faith in flawed humans to run our lives?? Oh, THAT makes sense!