Do you have to disprove other people's belief or non-belief?

[We Never Know]

Why does it seems like some people must defend their belief no matter what? Are they that unsure about their own belief?

Why does it seems like some people must do everything in their power to discredit or disprove other people's faith or belief? Are they so desperate to prove God can not exist because they themselves does not see any proof of God?

Are both groups wasting their time on proving to others that they are the one who are right?

"Are both groups wasting their time on proving to others that they are the one who are right?"

I was tired last night and didn't answer that.

In my opinion if John believes blue is the best color and Joe believe red is the best color,, A god is like what color is best. Its personal choice.

Who is right and is it worth arguing about?

They both are right because its what each likes, what appeals to them, its their personal choice.

Is it a waste if time to argue over a color, yes in my opinion. They should discuss why each likes the certain things they do instead of trying to insert why they are wrong or right.

 

[Heyo]

Is it a waste if time to argue over a color, yes in my opinion. They should discuss why each likes the certain things they do instead of trying to insert why they are wrong or right.

As long as it is all about what you like or dislike, you are right.
But when you claim that you are a better person because you only wear blue, you should be able to substantiate that with evidence.
And the moment you insist that I can't wear red because you like blue, we are in conflict.

 

[Firelight]

I asked him to check his answers. I said may be they are not true, that is why people attack him.

See post #45.

 

[Firelight]

I said this to you F1fan:

“Non-believers will attack and argue with anyone who so much as comments on a thread. They do not stick with the debate claims— the OP, the topic of the thread. It’s near impossible to even debate something on these forums due to the humongous amount of disrespect for the OP topic of a thread. Often, there are several different arguments happening on a thread with few comments related to the OP.”

This is what you said in response:

That's right.

An admission that you attack, argue, and disrespectfully interrupt threads. It’s “entertainment” for you.

I’ll leave you to your “entertainment” and your “logic.”

Bye!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, atheists are amused by insistence of some people to label someone as a messenger of God while they cannot show any evidence for the God, the message and the messenger.

 

[F1fan]

I said this to you F1fan:

“Non-believers will attack and argue with anyone who so much as comments on a thread. They do not stick with the debate claims— the OP, the topic of the thread. It’s near impossible to even debate something on these forums due to the humongous amount of disrespect for the OP topic of a thread. Often, there are several different arguments happening on a thread with few comments related to the OP.”

This is what you said in response:



An admission that you attack, argue, and disrespectfully interrupt threads. It’s “entertainment” for you.

I’ll leave you to your “entertainment” and your “logic.”

Bye!

It's more an issue that you can't control the debates when they go against your personal beliefs. The option is for you to find more sympathetic forums if you find criticism uncomfortable.

 

[F1fan]

I suggest this is entertaining for all users. Unless someone has a gun to your head every member volunteers to sign up and post their views and thinking. Entertainment is not necessarily feeling good and supported. The reward center of our brains are often stimulated by other reactions, like fear. Look at the prevalence of horror films, and it draws many people. We might assume these negative emotions are something to avoid, but our brains are stimulated by the fear induced by horror films, and the brain secretes hormones into the blood. We get high. The negative reaction to debates seems to attract believers when there are non-believers who post quite often.

 

[Firelight]

Why does it seems like some people must defend their belief no matter what? Are they that unsure about their own belief?

I don’t know.

Why does it seems like some people must do everything in their power to discredit or disprove other people's faith or belief? Are they so desperate to prove God can not exist because they themselves does not see any proof of God?

I think they are insecure, weak, lack respect, and lack confidence in their own beliefs. They are like bullies. It’s like they believe if they push enough people down, it will somehow boost themselves higher.

Are both groups wasting their time on proving to others that they are the one who are right?

Yes.

 

[oldbadger]

Why does it seems like some people must do everything in their power to discredit or disprove other people's faith or belief?

Beliefs? No
Faiths? No
I just don't like bigoted ideas and the prejudice within some religions, is all. We Deists are just like cuddly hamsters, really.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Why does it seems like some people must defend their belief no matter what? Are they that unsure about their own belief?

Why does it seems like some people must do everything in their power to discredit or disprove other people's faith or belief? Are they so desperate to prove God can not exist because they themselves does not see any proof of God?

Are both groups wasting their time on proving to others that they are the one who are right?

You are inferring the motive of insecurity on the part of the non believers, for passionately debating the existence of supernatural controlling entities. Generalising wildly. You do this without a shred of evidence. This could be interpreted as denigration. Perhaps, they see as I do, believers in empty articles of faith, to be victims of a false narrative. The motive is compassion and empathy. Perhaps misguided or expressed emotively, but coming from a place of concern for the wellbeing and freedom of others. After all it's not like religions don't have their dark sides is it?

 

[Firelight]

It's more an issue that you can't control the debates when they go against your personal beliefs. The option is for you to find more sympathetic forums if you find criticism uncomfortable.

This is you going off on your own agenda, once again. I see that it’s impossible for you to give relevant responses to the questions and comments of others.

Perhaps, you do not know how to have a discussion or debate. Maybe you only know how to continually attack others, hijack threads, follow your own agenda, or create your own rules (i.e. I don’t need to provide supportive evidence, but you do, etc.) that you expect others to accept and to follow. These actions are NOT what DEBATING or discussion is.

Actions like these can appear weak, pathetic, and cowardly. It can send a message that says, “I must always win! I can only win if I attack, hijack threads, force my own agenda, and create my own rules for everyone to follow. I cannot win if I create my own threads, or if I follow the forum rules of being civil to others during all discussions and debates.”

 

[rational experiences]

Men just humans quote I state science as science by men agreement. I am correct.

Then asks do we need to argue someone's belief.

Yes. Especially when the practice caused life's sacrifice attack.

As to believe self right first is owning natural life which is no belief or argument.

Hence natural life is the truth only and not a belief.

Versus man's egotism of I know already. Why I experiment. But notice no machine exists to experiment first.

 

[Firelight]

You are inferring the motive of insecurity on the part of the non believers, for passionately debating the existence of supernatural controlling entities. Generalising wildly. You do this without a shred of evidence. This could be interpreted as denigration. Perhaps, they see as I do, believers in empty articles of faith, to be victims of a false narrative. The motive is compassion and empathy. Perhaps misguided or expressed emotively, but coming from a place of concern for the wellbeing and freedom of others. After all it's not like religions don't have their dark sides is it?

If the motive is compassion and empathy, then that is what should be expressed. Attacking, belittling, and ripping apart another will never be seen as “compassion and empathy.” Do you believe parents if they say, “I’m only beating on you because I love you,” to their children? Do you think their children are feeling the love, or ever will feel the love from their parents if this happens? I don’t.

 

[Firelight]

Yes, atheists are amused by insistence of some people to label someone as a messenger of God while they cannot show any evidence for the God, the message and the messenger.

“Amused?” It would be pleasant if that’s all it was.

I see quite a few atheists express misery, anger, irritability, unhappiness, insecurity, and doubt.

I suppose I would be that way, too, if I couldn’t see evidence of God all around me.

 

[F1fan]

This is you going off on your own agenda, once again. I see that it’s impossible for you to give relevant responses to the questions and comments of others.

Whose agenda should I use, yours? My agenda is to debate religion on a religious debate forum. You bring up a non-problem. It's only a problem for you because you don't like religious debate.

Perhaps, you do not know how to have a discussion or debate. Maybe you only know how to continually attack others, hijack threads, follow your own agenda, or create your own rules (i.e. I don’t need to provide supportive evidence, but you do, etc.) that you expect others to accept and to follow. These actions are NOT what DEBATING or discussion is.

This is your assessment as a theist. You don't like criticism of religious belief. Again, your problem.

Actions like these can appear weak, pathetic, and cowardly. It can send a message that says, “I must always win! I can only win if I attack, hijack threads, force my own agenda, and create my own rules for everyone to follow. I cannot win if I create my own threads, or if I follow the forum rules of being civil to others during all discussions and debates.”

If I break rules of the forum then the moderators will let me know. You not liking my style or approach isn't a rule violation. Again, your problem.

 

[rational experiences]

If men of science just humans placate the scientific teaching method then men about creation as science did.

Religion is ceremonial first. Subject to the group gathering for meditative prayer. Meditation. Healing oils incense. Bell ringing resonance. Once the building structure musical sound therapy.

Ceremony of course changed.

If ceremony changed. Life status changed. Teaching changed. As mind consciousness was changed.

Relating ceremonial religious group idealism.

Status rich man. The community group involved in governing controlled law by status evidence.

Also based on mind behaviour. Human thinking balances

Historic proven irrational. As man's fall radiating fallout causes chemical brain imbalance and irrationality.

Anywhere in any organisation not just religious.

Hence as religious church origin forbade nuclear science as an organisation. In life today human scientist behaviour becomes questionable themselves.

About why they claim irrational human behaviour is just religious and not organised.

 

[Aupmanyav]

“Amused?” It would be pleasant if that’s all it was.
I see quite a few atheists express misery, anger, irritability, unhappiness, insecurity, and doubt.
I suppose I would be that way, too, if I couldn’t see evidence of God all around me.

None of that with me. I am just amused (honestly) by the belief of people in God/Gods, soul, heaven, hell, judgment and deliverance, prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis (also rebirth, siddhis and Kundalini in Hinduism) without even a shred of evidence.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

If the motive is compassion and empathy, then that is what should be expressed. Attacking, belittling, and ripping apart another will never be seen as “compassion and empathy.” Do you believe parents if they say, “I’m only beating on you because I love you,” to their children? Do you think their children are feeling the love, or ever will feel the love from their parents if this happens? I don’t.

Once again you are throwing about accusations against atheists as if theists don't belittle or attack. Then you're making a bizarre comparison with child abuse. I can't take you seriously.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

“Amused?” It would be pleasant if that’s all it was.

I see quite a few atheists express misery, anger, irritability, unhappiness, insecurity, and doubt.

I suppose I would be that way, too, if I couldn’t see evidence of God all around me.

Once again you are denigrating and insulting with generalisation and personal opinion. Which says far more about you than it does atheists. Again this a joke of a position. Ps I assure you a considerable part of atheist misery is having to coexist on the same planet with those who subscribe to articles of untestable unproven blind faith. Making life miserable.

 

[Firelight]

Once again you are throwing about accusations against atheists as if theists don't belittle or attack. Then you're making a bizarre comparison with child abuse. I can't take you seriously.

I didn’t accuse anyone of anything.