Atheists and their jargon of insults

[Dimi95]

I was exposed to Christianity in three froms as a child, two from my two aunts, and a third by my grandmother. I was suspicious of the claims made by my various family members even as a child. For some reason none of it added up, even though I wasn't sure why. One thing I saw was the rift and conflict between my Catholic aunt and my Bapist aunt, with the Baptist being the most conservative form, and certain we was correct, and the Catholics all wrong. My presbytarian grandma tried to keep the peace as a moderate. My grandma took me to church, and I had loads of questions. She often criticized the sermon and pastor, and I said we don't have to go. LOL. No, it was part of her community.

When I was in high school she made me go help at the church food kitchen. Her church fed about 200 people twice a week. It was all they could afford. What I learned was this is what church is, helping others. They didn't pray, they didn't require anyone to acknowledge Christianity or Jesus or anything religious. There was no test to deserve food. They helped their community. To my mind these people were true Christians. THIS is what Jesus taught, not church pews filled with people hearing how they are no good scumbags destined for hell if not for Jesus, and pony up a few bucks. I could see an ideal Christian church be little more than just a group of people helping others. No church service, no pews, just people coming together to celebrate the dignity of others.

Self-serving dogma is just self-service. Greed for an absolute truth, and other vices are justified. I remember a big debate on the old Beliefnet boards where the topic was whether works was necessary for salvation. There were a few folks who were adamant that all that is required for salvation is to accept Jesus as savior, and then, essentially, nothing can displace this, even murder. Once saved, always saved. These folks were more dogmatic, and demonstrably selfish and nasty. They claimed to be moral because they believed their salvation washed them from sin. It certainly showed that Christians do create a form of Christianity that doesn't require any moral thought or action. As I often note, Christianity is a collection of sects that allows "anything goes", a religious buffet where a believer can choose their type of salvation to fit their existing attitudes. This can allow the worst in the self, and avoid a path where challenges makes a better person.

Well , for certain nature has given us the right to chose our own path and each one of us comes with his own story.

 

[F1fan]

Well , for certain nature has given us the right to choose our own path and each one of us comes with his own story.

The dilemma is that the nature dictates how the person will approach the options. A person who is naturally introspective and somewhat wise will recognize their faults and work to improve their character, whereas those who are naturally selfish and exploitive will follow a path of least resistance to achieve self-serving outcomes, even if it harms others. This is justified by the mind that will convince itself of anything.

 

[PureX]

I have a point, or really questions around a point, related to the OP that continue to keep coming to mind as I read the posts.

Is it insulting to challenge the claims of others and request explanation and evidence to back those claims?

The problem here is that many of us don't bother to differentiate between a statement of personal opinion or belief, and an actual CLAIM being made about universal reality. And this is as true of the people making the statement as the people receiving it.

Personally, I think that we should take every such statement as a personal opinion unless it's specifically designated to be a universal truth claim. If we did this, I think we would avoid a great deal of senseless arguing and insult.

Is it insulting to point out flaws and fallacies in what another claims?

Yes, unless our opinions and/or criticisms were being solicited, as when someone makes a universal truth claim.

If you ask a person you know to review a paper you have written on a subject that you are both familiar with, do you really want that person to just rubber stamp the work? What if they pass on response to important portions of your work that would have benefitted from honest feedback?

I have benefited from that when others on here seem to be decrying it as baseless and boundless insult.

I don't even think the most intelligent in the population are able to come up with perfect conceptions from the very first to last thought on whatever subject is being considered.

It may be hard to take in some cases or with some people, but I don't agree that it is insulting.

It is insulting to presume that our view or understanding of things is so superior to someone else's that their merely stating their view warrants our correcting them.

 

[PureX]

The dilemma is that the nature dictates how the person will approach the options. A person who is naturally introspective and somewhat wise will recognize their faults and work to improve their character, whereas those who are naturally selfish and exploitive will follow a path of least resistance to achieve self-serving outcomes, even if it harms others. This is justified by the mind that will convince itself of anything.

That's well observed and stated. However, it's not entirely the doing of 'nature' as we do have the capacity to both recognize and override our innate biological (natural) inclinations. And in fact, it is by our willingness to do so that we grow and change and become wiser as individual human beings. Or, by our unwillingness, that we don't.

 

[cladking]

Is that a statement or a question?

Both!

Science is based on experiments because that is what is needed to increase confidence in, or kill, a theory.

Yes! So everything not based in experiment is more a belief than a theory.

That has nothing to do with us seeing only what we believe. Whatever that means.

Everything is related to what we believe because experiment shows that is the only thing that gets past our senses.

 

[cladking]

It is insulting to presume that our view or understanding of things is so superior to someone else's that their merely stating their view warrants our correcting them.

This is typical in almost every response to almost every argument. The argument is ignored regardless of how much evidential support is included and an wholly irrelevant response ensues. If the responder believes in science it will also be accompanied by a lecture about what's what along with irrelevant links.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem here is that many of us don't bother to differentiate between a statement of personal opinion or belief, and an actual CLAIM being made about universal reality. And this is as true of the people making the statement as the people receiving it.

That recognition doesn't seem to be a problem. I believe most of us do recognize the differences. "I believe in God" is a different statement than "You're going to burn in Hell for not believing in God". I think most of us can recognize statements of belief, statements of fact and statements of belief rendered as fact. The problem arises with those that cannot or won't.

By your reckoning, it seems nothing can be questioned. So what would be the point of engaging anyone about anything or challenging obvious erroneous statements of fact that are not? Asking questions is a form of challenging. It is also how we examine and learn. How we recognize personal opinion that is being levied as a universal fact. Or come to new information that might change our view.

It is how we can determine what is valid and what is nonsense.

Should we accept wild claims without challenge? If someone claims that they have shown that the assumptions Darwin used to formulate the theory of evolution are all wrong and yet cannot even list those assumptions and refuses to, should we accept that claim as valid?

You seem to be suggesting that all challenge is insult. You also seem to be suggesting that others cannot possess superior knowledge or the recognize that a claim is wanting. Neither view has merit in my opinion.

Personally, I think that we should take every such statement as a personal opinion unless it's specifically designated to be a universal truth claim. If we did this, I think we would avoid a great deal of senseless arguing and insult.

Why should personal opinion be granted blanket immunity here when it isn't elsewhere? Do you buy a car or anything simply on the word of the salesman or a commercial without challenge?

Yes, unless our opinions and/or criticisms were being solicited, as when someone makes a universal truth claim.

So posting claims and opinions publicly isn't soliciting response? That seems rather naive and unrealistic. I do not agree with you.

It is insulting to presume that our view or understanding of things is so superior to someone else's that their merely stating their view warrants our correcting them.

You are presuming it here and I have seen you presume it many other places too. From my observations, it is my opinion that you believe you have that warrant. Of course, I did intentionally solicit response. But since I have qualified my response as personal opinion, by your standards it stands unchallengeable it seems.

What I have observed is that questioning others, recognition of logical fallacies and recognition of opinion rendered as fact are intentionally interpreted as insults and personal attacks as a tactic to avoid debate and discussion. To divert from the facts. In that case, one side doesn't learn and the other side is left with the evidence supporting their view of the other side. Rather than as a defense of a position, it is a technique to immunize rejection based on emotion and belief and not fact.

For instance, consistently claiming that every scientific opinion that goes against a particular position of opinion is scientism and that the scientismists can't even see that is a move to give a specific personal opinion blanket immunity and make it fact by default. It is not insulting to challenge such a position to reveal this sort of tactic. In fact, it may be a duty to logic and reason so that others can see what they may have missed. Hopefully, even the person using the tactic will learn something useful in understanding there own views and responses. Hopefully.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is typical in almost every response to almost every argument. The argument is ignored regardless of how much evidential support is included and an wholly irrelevant response ensues. If the responder believes in science it will also be accompanied by a lecture about what's what along with irrelevant links.

No one ignores your claims. You don't really provide much that falls into the category of argument, since you launch your claims as naked assertions without support. Your claim that you provide boundless evidence or even a little is challenged by the recognition that you do not.

You are looking to get blanket immunity for support of wild, extraordinary claims. I don't see any reason that you should get it. If you get it, then we all do.

 

[al_berk]

"Magic", they say.
They say "miracles", "supernatural", etc etc etc ... they even say "spaghettis" and in their minds is an insult. So they are.

What is really "miracle" or "magic" or "supernatural" in an atheist mind?
IMHO, they are just things they cann't explain with their current personal knowledge ... and there is soooo much happening in the world right now that most people cann't explain, that I would say miracles are happening all the time and atheists cann't negate it. Insulting is the way their brains deal with it.

This is a common misunderstanding of atheistic foundations, namely naturalism. It says NOTHING about the level of our current understanding of a phenomenon, it is about its attribution. Let me give you a simple example - you are experiencing severe abdominal pain, would you attribute it to a natural process of indigestion, inflammation, ulcer, etc, or to a supernatural divine intervention? I bet you will rush to an IC unit and demand an examination.

Another example: you observe a person levitating in the air and producing loaves of bread out of thin air. Would your first hunch be "it is an angel," or "it is a heck of a magician"?

There are lots of things we don't know causes yet, but we attribute them all to natural and empirically testable causes.

 

[PureX]

That recognition doesn't seem to be a problem. I believe most of us do recognize the differences. "I believe in God" is a different statement than "You're going to burn in Hell for not believing in God". I think most of us can recognize statements of belief, statements of fact and statements of belief rendered as fact. The problem arises with those that cannot or won't.

What you believe isn’t the point. The point is that when we do no bother to clarify, or ask for clarification, people will tend to just assume whatever they want. And often that will be derogatory.

By your reckoning, it seems nothing can be questioned.

We are all free to believe whatever we choose. When someone bothers to tell us what they believe, we are free to ask them about it because their telling us implies that they want us to know about it. This does not imply, however, that they are seeking our agreement, or a debate.

So what would be the point of engaging anyone about anything or challenging obvious erroneous statements of fact that are not?

We would engage them to better understand and appreciate their position. I see no point in challenging them unless they are seeking our opinion

Asking questions is a form of challenging.

No, it’s not. Asking a question is just asking a question. It’s just seeking more information.

It is also how we examine and learn.

Learning does not require debate. It doesn’t ever require that we offer an opinion.

How we recognize personal opinion that is being levied as a universal fact. Or come to new information that might change our view.

It is how we can determine what is valid and what is nonsense.

Most of the time, no one is asking us for any of that. And when we insist on offering it anyway, it appears that we think we are their better. Mostly because we do think that.

Should we accept wild claims without challenge?

Yes. That would be both the wise and polite thing to do. When someone says “I believe X” we should accept that they believe it. Our opinion of their belief in X has not been sought.

If someone claims that they have shown that the assumptions Darwin used to formulate the theory of evolution are all wrong and yet cannot even list those assumptions and refuses to, should we accept that claim as valid?

Why do you presume yourself to be in charge of validating the beliefs of others? Why can’t you just accept that they believe what they believe and move on? Whether you agree with it or not?

You seem to be suggesting that all challenge is insult.

Unsolicited challenges are insulting. Yes.

You also seem to be suggesting that others cannot possess superior knowledge or the recognize that a claim is wanting. Neither view has merit in my opinion.

You are continuing to presume that every statement of belief is a ”claim” and that you are somehow responsible for validating it. They aren’t, and you aren’t.

Why should personal opinion be granted blanket immunity here when it isn't elsewhere?

It generally is and should be respected here and everywhere.

Do you buy a car or anything simply on the word of the salesman or a commercial without challenge?

The salesman is not insisting that I buy anything. So I have no reason to debate with him about it. If he did insist, I would just refuse and walk away.

So posting claims and opinions publicly isn't soliciting response?

No. In most instances it is not. I find I’d very odd that you are having so much trouble understanding this.

That seems rather naive and unrealistic. I do not agree with you.

You seem to be very addicted to the idea that you are in charge of judging what everyone else thinks and believes, to the point where you presume that if they dare to speak of it, you must correct them. I find this to be very a unwise presumption.

You are presuming it here and I have seen you presume it many other places too.

I’m getting better at letting go of that urge. And I think this would be a better site if we all tried to be more careful in this regard.

From my observations, it is my opinion that you believe you have that warrant. Of course, I did intentionally solicit response. But since I have qualified my response as personal opinion, by your standards it stands unchallengeable it seems.

What I have observed is that questioning others, recognition of logical fallacies and recognition of opinion rendered as fact are intentionally interpreted as insults and personal attacks as a tactic to avoid debate and discussion. To divert from the facts. In that case, one side doesn't learn and the other side is left with the evidence supporting their view of the other side. Rather than as a defense of a position, it is a technique to immunize rejection based on emotion and belief and not fact.

For instance, consistently claiming that every scientific opinion that goes against a particular position of opinion is scientism and that the scientismists can't even see that is a move to give a specific personal opinion blanket immunity and make it fact by default. It is not insulting to challenge such a position to reveal this sort of tactic. In fact, it may be a duty to logic and reason so that others can see what they may have missed. Hopefully, even the person using the tactic will learn something useful in understanding there own views and responses. Hopefully.

 

[McBell]

No one ignores your claims.

I do.

You don't really provide much that falls into the category of argument, since you launch your claims as naked assertions without support. Your claim that you provide boundless evidence or even a little is challenged by the recognition that you do not.

And this is exactly why.
Now if they were to actually support their bold empty claims with something other than more bold empty claims, I might stop ignoring them.

You are looking to get blanket immunity for support of wild, extraordinary claims. I don't see any reason that you should get it. If you get it, then we all do.

I agree.

 

[MikeF]

Yes. That would be both the wise and polite thing to do. When someone says “I believe X” we should accept that they believe it. Our opinion of their belief in X has not been sought.

I think the context in which someone says "I believe X" matters though, right? If there is a need to come to a consensus on a particular matter and the stated belief in “X” is used to support and justify a position being advocated for, I would see it as more than appropriate to question and evaluate the stated belief.

It would also be appropriate to question and evaluate a stated belief if the belief in “X” is being shared publicly in the hope that others will also adopt a belief in “X” and assign the same value to the belief as the one who is sharing.

Sometimes it is necessary to question a belief, whether or not such questioning is being solicited.

 

[osgart]

Without challenging anything the alternative is blind acceptance. Atheists often have the characteristic quality of challenging everything. If theists are going to hate on that then they are not really truth seekers; they are comfort seekers.

Also religious authority and power that does not like challenge nor any questioning is very bankrupt of morality and character.

freedom of civil speech should never be about shutting up and never taking opposition in public forums.

Opinions that carry weight are well reasoned, and not in ignorance of facts.

Equally important is that there are a lot of lived opinions that imagine the world, and then go out to make what they imagine reality to be.

So opinions as well as ideas are vitally important, or should everyone shut up and enjoy status quo with all the social ills in the world? I think not!

In any public forum civil discourse should be the aim and goal. If not that then what you have is a demand for blind conformity because civil discourse is about challenging ideas, and opinions.

Theists do engage a lot in debate forums so they should expect that atheists, and agnostics will justly have contrary positions and definite commitments as to what they consider to be in accordance with reality.

Debate by nature is about disproving, and pitting ideas and facts against each other. The problem with debates without discussion is that personal conflict arises easily.

Facts alone can be manipulated, and interpreted differently. How often is a debate about facts vs. other facts? Its usually about interpretation of facts that support or deny a conclusion.

No one should force another into their truth. Let everyone be persuaded in their own minds with every consideration relevant to what they commit to.

All these debates seem to be off the cuff, and not well prepared anyways. Naturally you'll have people say things they are not prepared to back up in a debate.

My last point is that neither science, nor religion should be blindly accepted.

 

[PureX]

I think the context in which someone says "I believe X" matters though, right?

Sure, but it's SO easy for us to presume they want us to "correct" their beliefs when they don't that we very often invent that context so we can proceed to correct them. And we know this because they immediately resist our correction. So at that point, why do we persist?

If there is a need to come to a consensus on a particular matter and the stated belief in “X” is used to support and justify a position being advocated for, I would see it as more than appropriate to question and evaluate the stated belief.

Who's need is this? And what is really motivating it? And if we were really seeking consensus, why do we resist and dismiss any perspective not our own?

It would also be appropriate to question and evaluate a stated belief if the belief in “X” is being shared publicly in the hope that others will also adopt a belief in “X” and assign the same value to the belief as the one who is sharing.

Sharing is just sharing. Not a call for our value judgment or correction.

Sometimes it is necessary to question a belief, whether or not such questioning is being solicited.

Why? Just saying this does not make it so. So what does?

And you don't really mean "question" here, do you. You mean debate, contend with, and correct according to your own presumed superior view. Actual questions are fine. But what you're referring to isn't really just asking questions, is it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not based only on experiment. It is based both on experiment and observations. Both are evidence that can support or falsify scientific hypotheses or theories. Theories and hypotheses can make predictions about new experimental results or new observations.

This has been brought to his attention ad nauseum.

It just gets the handwave treatment

 

[cladking]

This has been brought to his attention ad nauseum.

It just gets the handwave treatment

Every experiment shows that people see what they believe exists. You can dress "see" up in pretty clothes by calling it "observation" and your beliefs by calling it "evidence" but these are still just words, semantics, and word games.

No matter how many times you are told that experiment lies at the heart of science it is dismissed and I am "corrected". I rub peoples faces in experiment that shows the messes we leave behind but they still deny experiment. They still continue to extrapolate the inextrapolatable and interpolate the uninterpolatable. They continue to be blind to the simple fact that paradigms rule our perceptions of experiment and these are periodically revolutionized.

Reductionistic science is simply incapable of understanding anything that can not be reduced. This is true by definition because we are a species that knows everything and reasons in circles. "God" provides clues to our nature continually (like the double slit experiment) but we persist in our beliefs in our omniscience, intelligence, and our unique status as being the only thinking species which is quite remarkable since no one has ever even defined "thinking"!!!

We are the very crown of all of God's creation and only we have the omniscience to appreciate it. What a remarkable species we must truly be. As such we have a perfect right to demean and insult anyone who doesn't accept the premises and prevailing paradigms.

 

[cladking]

Every experiment shows that people see what they believe exists. You can dress "see" up in pretty clothes by calling it "observation" and your beliefs by calling it "evidence" but these are still just words, semantics, and word games.

...And the fact remains that those who don't understand how science works continue to parade about nekkid.

 

[cladking]

...but we persist in our beliefs in our omniscience, intelligence, and our unique status as being the only thinking species which is quite remarkable since no one has ever even defined "thinking"!!!

Incredibly we base everything on "I think therefore I am". And then think in a 500 year old circular argument that only humans are conscious.

Homo circularis rationatio!!!!!

 

[PureX]

Without challenging anything the alternative is blind acceptance.

No, it's not. Anyone can and will believe anything they want regardless of anyone else's stated beliefs. There is no need for argument or debate to maintain this freedom. And usually there is no call for it. Yet many of us just can't seem to restrain ourselves. And I think if we were to honestly investigate this, we would find our own egos to be the actual motive behind it.

Atheists often have the characteristic quality of challenging everything. If theists are going to hate on that then they are not really truth seekers; they are comfort seekers.

Is there something wrong with seeking comfort? And keep in mind that we humans don't get to know the truth. All we get are a bunch of relatively true fact, from which we're just making 'the truth', up.

Also religious authority and power that does not like challenge nor any questioning is very bankrupt of morality and character.

What form of authority does? What social structure could?

Opinions that carry weight are well reasoned, and not in ignorance of facts.

Facts are just relative bits of information that are true or false in relation to other relative bits of information. They mislead us just as easily and often as they illuminate is. Let's not make more of them than they are.

Equally important is that there are a lot of lived opinions that imagine the world, and then go out to make what they imagine reality to be.

Welcome to an important aspect of the human condition. One that defines us as being human, on fact.

So opinions as well as ideas are vitally important, or should everyone shut up and enjoy status quo with all the social ills in the world? I think not!

On the other hand, arguing endlessly with no intention of actually learning anything new, but instead to force our opinions and views on everyone else because we are so convinced that we are right isn't a very wise or productive methodology, either. Is it. Especially for a collective, cooperative species like humans.

In any public forum civil discourse should be the aim and goal.

Yes, "civil discourse"; as opposed to constant judgment and correction.

... then what you have is a demand for blind conformity because civil discourse is about challenging ideas, and opinions.

That never happens, though, because no human sees and understands the world the same as any other. In fact, despots have been trying to enforce such conformity for eons, and have always failed. We humans need to 'conform' to survive, and we have been struggling with how to do that, forever.

Theists do engage a lot in debate forums so they should expect that atheists, and agnostics will justly have contrary positions and definite commitments as to what they consider to be in accordance with reality.

When we attack people for just sharing their worldview with us, they do tend to defend themselves. But this isn't really a debate. it's just a battle of egos from which no one actually learns anything but further entrenched self-righteousness.

Debate by nature is about disproving, and pitting ideas and facts against each other.

Not every conversation or discussion is a debate. Nor should they be.

The problem with debates without discussion is that personal conflict arises easily.

When we attack people for the way they think, becaue they don't think like us, they tend to counter-attack. That's not debate. That's just a battle of egos. Which is what most people on here think is "debate".

Facts alone can be manipulated, and interpreted differently. How often is a debate about facts vs. other facts? Its usually about interpretation of facts that support or deny a conclusion.

Again, welcome to the human condition and it's inevitable limitations.

No one should force another into their truth. Let everyone be persuaded in their own minds with every consideration relevant to what they commit to.

Everyone pretty much already is. It's why they think as they do, and believe what they believe. The question to us, is, are we willing to learn from them? Or are we only interested in 'correcting them' according to our own worldview?

All these debates seem to be off the cuff, and not well prepared anyways. Naturally you'll have people say things they are not prepared to back up in a debate.
My last point is that neither science, nor religion should be blindly accepted.

"Belief" is a dishonest position that's being instigated by our ego. And unless we learn how to control our ego, it's a position that we will continue to hold and defend regardless of the negative consequences.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What you believe isn’t the point.

And yet your response validates it as a point. I believe I have made a point.

The point is that when we do no bother to clarify, or ask for clarification, people will tend to just assume whatever they want. And often that will be derogatory.

Often I see response in kind to absolutist positions that are not offered kindly or with any reason, but with the implied or stated declaration that those not meeting the conditions are all wrong. How much clarification is needed to understand that?

We are all free to believe whatever we choose.

I agree.

When someone bothers to tell us what they believe, we are free to ask them about it because their telling us implies that they want us to know about it.

I agree.

This does not imply, however, that they are seeking our agreement, or a debate.

That they put it in the public square with the history of what happens when that occurs leaves it subject to questioning, rejection and debate. On here, if statements are placed in areas that not for debate, then that what you say would be consistent.

We would engage them to better understand and appreciate their position.

I have no disagreement and that really isn't the crux of my response.

I see no point in challenging them unless they are seeking our opinion

Again, I have seen otherwise. I maintain that placing opinions in areas of debate is implicit acceptance that a post is going to be debated.

No, it’s not. Asking a question is just asking a question. It’s just seeking more information.

It is both and doesn't require your recognition for that state to exist.

Learning does not require debate. It doesn’t ever require that we offer an opinion.

Not anything I claimed.

Most of the time, no one is asking us for any of that. And when we insist on offering it anyway, it appears that we think we are their better. Mostly because we do think that.

We are talking about context here. And the context is one of debate and the presumption of insult for what appears merely to be disagreement.

Yes. That would be both the wise and polite thing to do. When someone says “I believe X” we should accept that they believe it. Our opinion of their belief in X has not been sought.

I disagree. Wild claims should be challenged or there is the risk that misinformation will become cemented into the subject being discussed and debated. Yielding to the least common denominator is destructive and not creative and of no value to anyone.

Why do you presume yourself to be in charge of validating the beliefs of others?

Having knowledge that others don't is not a presumption. The discussion here is about claims of fact. Why are you presuming and avoiding when the subject is a science that you are not an expert at and the point highlighted is valid? This seems to be hand waving to wipe away a valid point without proper address.

Why can’t you just accept that they believe what they believe and move on? Whether you agree with it or not?

Accepting that someone believes something isn't the question. I do accept that they believe it. I can also recognize what they believe to be fact is erroneous and challenge that with questions and verifiable statements of fact.

Unsolicited challenges are insulting. Yes.

Within the proper context, I agree. In a debate forum, that seems entirely out of order.

You are continuing to presume that every statement of belief is a ”claim” and that you are somehow responsible for validating it.

A statement is a claim. That I believe in X is a statement of fact. That I believe that others that don't believe the way I do will suffer some consequence is debatable. I am recognizing the difference and not putting myself in a position of validation. Are you?

They aren’t, and you aren’t.

Again, challenging statement of fact with superior knowledge is not presumption and to let it without challenge might even be more wrong. In that context, yes, a person that knows more than the one making the claim of fact should respond.

It generally is and should be respected here and everywhere.

What I see are people providing sincere belief that is counter to the beliefs of others and those providers do not always provide it with the sensitivity presumed and often respond badly when what they provide isn't swallowed whole and without question.

The salesman is not insisting that I buy anything. So I have no reason to debate with him about it. If he did insist, I would just refuse and walk away.

The salesman is insisting. I can't see you just walking away. The point was that you do not make a purchase simply on the word of someone with a vested interest in getting you to follow them and not just to comply with anything anyone says about what they are selling.

No. In most instances it is not.

Not in this context it is not. And that is the context of this discussion.

I find I’d very odd that you are having so much trouble understanding this.

I know you do. That seems to be part of the problem and the intent of your post more than a proper reading of what we are discussing.

You seem to be very addicted to the idea that you are in charge of judging what everyone else thinks and believes,

Now I am an addict and self-appointed judge. Now we are seeing the part that prompted my questions in the first place. When pressed, this is more often the sort of response that people claiming belief in a debate have when their beliefs are not swallowed whole.

to the point where you presume that if they dare to speak of it, you must correct them.

If people make erroneous statements of fact or untestable claims, then they should be addressed. You are addressing me to correct what you see as flaws and have appointed yourself to do so.

I find this to be very a unwise presumption.

I find what you are trying to sell here unwise presumption. Posting opinion and belief in a debate with the expectation that such will stand unchallenged doesn't make a lot of sense. It appears to be naive and unrealistic to me. I think that would be a common recognition.

I’m getting better at letting go of that urge.

I continue to hope and pray that you do.

And I think this would be a better site if we all tried to be more careful in this regard

That door swings two ways.