[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that proselytizing is notably (and thankfully), absent for the most part on this forum. Still, there is a welling up of frustration when one espouses a belief that another finds no merital basis for.

If you go on the internet forum and claim online poker is rigged you will no doubt be flamed. Why? Because you would be espousing a belief for which you have no proof of.

This is why I used my pixie example. Not to be condescending, but to show that if I propose a belief, which you were to find ludicrous, would you not become utterly frustrated with my insistence? Especially if I am unable to provide any evidence to substantiate what I say?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don’t see many posts originating from the point of view of an argument for any religion. Most of the posts are answers to David’s questions or quizzes. Sure there are some Ops that might begin with a religious topic. But, you already agree that proselytizing is notably absent.

So , when you say this:

[ QUOTE ]
Still, there is a welling up of frustration when one espouses a belief that another finds no merital basis for.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean? How can one discuss topics such as religion (that again were mostly not originated by believers) without explaining ones religion?

If we agree there is not proselytizing, yet you say discussing religion with believers is frustrating - how do we fix this? We can stop talking religion or “discuss among ourselves”. Rather, if you show me some examples to support what you say we can see if we can resolve it. If there are none or few, then admit that the bitterness is brought to the table.