Well yes I do know, but to others that would just be perceived as belief or illogical, so sure we will call it belief if that makes you happy.

And it is true that my beliefs are based off Scripture.

Yeah, but it also shows that you shouldn't just blindly do what he tells you, because he could possibly be attempting to deceive you. The question also is why he would test in such an extreme manner in the first place, rather than say tell the person to do a handstand.

I said someone who isn't a believer (short for "believer in Christ"). Not religion in general.

It is in the sense that I want legislation or the courts to rule that governments have no right to establish what a marriage is. But I see your point.

Not really a desire to learn more but I've come to understand that in a lot of ways white supremasists/"nationalists" and religious radicals/jihadists are kindred spirits. They're basically the different sides of the exact same coin.

It's largely awkward men who aren't really the "winners" in life who are easily indoctrinated because such a movement suddenly not only makes them feel like they belong. Suddenly they get a rush of "power" when they are pushed an identity that they are actually part of an "elite" group and everyone else is beneath them. It's very attractive to a guy who's going nowhere in life, didn't get laid much in high school, didn't have many friends, etc. etc. etc.

I think largely speaking that is the recruiting base by and large for both groups. The ideology is almost in some cases a secondary thing, the feeling of "belonging" is a powerful draw to a person, particularily men for whatever reason, that don't fit into societal social groups very well otherwise. For men I think for whatever reason, belonging to a social group/peer group is extremely important to self worth. When you don't have it there is a deep-seated feeling of frustration and shame I think for whatever reason. 

The irony is these two groups would hate each other, but on a personal level, a lot of these guys are mirror images of each other, they just happened to be born in a different part on the map and got indoctinated into that designated group. 

I feel that, looking at history, this is strictly untrue. Minor infringment on freedom of speech doesn't precede, or indicate a slippery slope into totalitarianism. Pre-Nazi Germany had free speech, almost all of the rights to censor were applied in a single day.

You require a sound justification, explanation for any infringment on freedom of speech - and it seems to me that it wouldn't create much more of a slippery slope than anything else. It's, to me, just as bad of an argument as saying that banning hard opioids will lead to the ban of alcohol, saying that allowing 18 year olds to vote will lead to toddlers making decisions in the country. 

Uhhhhh... Don't know what that has to do with anything.  I'll try rephrasing.

You know what it's like not to accept another person's particular set of religious beliefs.  Others feel the same way about your set of religious beliefs, whether they are atheists, muslims, or whatever.

How can people support a political view that not only does not benefit themselves, but also hurts many, many people. Taking away health care that is very adequate is a perfect example. Agreeing with tax cuts on wealthy while you are working class and will see tax rises or wage cuts or the removal of jobs domestically is another example.

My biggest one right now is trying to understand why people will work harder to avoid a legitimate sociopolitical issue than just addressing it head on and resolving it. Police violence (saying there is other violence is not in any way a solution to that specific problem. It is, at best, excusing the topic. It also falls into the supporting a group that you are not part of with no benefit to you), kneeling in protest (It became about military and a flag but that is because people want to avoid the actual issue. However, more than a year later, the topic is more prominent than if they had just addressed it a year ago and moved on), black lives matters (they are a terrorist organization akin to the KKK according to some people. Sure, that is for the most part completely unfounded, but you know... lets run from the issues they are actually trying to present and re-victimize the victims), and the treatment of Muslims/Arabs (do I even need to explain?) are all examples of this. Why not just attack the issues specifically head on and make the country better. Avoiding the problems presented, especially by re-victimizing the victims, does not go unnoticed and in case you are unaware, it has never made things better.

Why does faith need to be tested by an omniscient being?

Well that's selfish of god. Creating people without thinking that in fact, they may not have the desire to carry an offspring - let alone the offspring having a desire to live.