Irrelevant to whom? You? Because it's certainly not irrelevant to the person making the claim.
Irrelevant when trying to establish the claims they are making as correlating with observable reality. I don't care what they get out of it. Not in the least. Good for them... whatever. It doesn't mean it is truth. It should be irrelevant to anyone who is concerned with the truth over whether or not they are hurting someone's feelings.
Tell me then, what does it accomplish questioning the claimant when neither of you have a shred of objective evidence for or against the existence of their god? What do you have to gain? What does the claimant? The only thing I've seen gained here is unnecessary drama.
Holy crap you haven't thought about this at all. I don't have a shred of objective evidence for or against someone's alien abduction, or the idea that lizard people are holding high positions in government. Should I just accept (or even just let stand) claims like those and any impact they might have on my life or sensibilities, or the life and sensibilities of any of those around me without question? Hell no I shouldn't. Nor will I. The way you feel about the way I conduct myself is noted. Now excuse me if I don't give a single shred of crap.
Help me to understand the difference between you speaking your mind and the Christians in your community speaking theirs. Do you have more of a right to do so because you perceive yours to be more correct than theirs?
No... as I stated, I am going to only bring to the table evidence, data, facts, figures, items that comport with reality. That's where I draw the line between what is and is not acceptable in the realm of compelling argumentation. Next time you walk into a court room, why not ask them the types of argumentation they feel is most appropriate? Do you think it just fine and dandy when the lawyer makes all sorts of accusatory and damning statements (in their opening statement for example) before any evidence has even been presented? Does that not, at all, give you pause to wonder whether those things are being said simply to sway your mind based on emotional response alone? Because that's what it is - and there you have the foundations for the reason that lawyers are very often presented as obstinate villains in media like movies and TV. It's easy to want to rebuke a person who is attempting to sway you into thinking bad things about a personality just based on emotional response to what they are claiming without evidence. Why is it that someone trying to get you to think
positive things about a personality in the same way (without evidence) is just given a free pass? Falling for that right out of the gate is simple gullibility.
Someone proselytized to me just today in another thread. Did I think it was inconsiderate? Sure. Did I find in necessary to tell them to support their claim with well reasoned arguments? Nope. I didn't feel the need to create drama. I simply showed the member how projecting their views onto me was pointless. Did it have any impact on my day or my worldview? Most certainly not.
The "drama" is all part of making them understand that their point of view is tenuous, and to inform them that they had better go and find some actual, reasonable justification before they walk around making foolish claims off the top of their heads. It's a way to try and quell the behavior of others you find foolish, unnecessary or annoying. It's called "establishing boundaries" in other spheres of
accepted psycho-babble, but when it is done in opposition to religious extroversion it is vilified. Well then I am a villain. Now... do you think I care?
In my experience, people who have such problems in the beliefs of others are entirely too wrapped up in their own.
Good for you and your experience.