It is unjust to prove or disprove someone's religion.

You said, "I wouldn't mind if you prove your belief to everyone if it was TRUE and it has been proven." You've admitted that it's not unjust to prove your belief to someone if your belief has been proven. You've admitted that, at least in this example, it's not unjust to prove/disprove someone's religion. There have been countless religions throughout human history that contradict what is already known about our universe. You also said, "I mean, if the beliefs of "crazy people" to be someone's interpretation of why we exist then it's kind of a religion." There are plenty of crazy people who believe things that contradict reality. You claim that their beliefs are a kind of religion, which means that it's just to disprove their religion. You say, "nobody knows what's true and what's false yet". I disagree. There are things we can know for sure. If someone claims that their god created the universe 6,000 years ago and we have evidence to support a universe drastically older, then we know, beyond reasonable doubt, that their god didn't create the universe 6,000 years ago. Whether you agree with an "old universe" or not, if it is true that there is evidence that contradicts a religious claim, then the religious claim is false. You said, "It's okay to challenge other people's religion to respectively share and learn ideals with one another." What if you disprove their religion while respectively challenging them? You're disproving their religion either way. One doesn't challenge another's religious beliefs without either trying to persuade them out of their beliefs or trying to prove their own. This is another exception that you accept. You agree that, when challenging other's religions to respectively share and learn ideals, it's not unjust to prove/disprove someone's religion. You said, "We don't know if there are things out there beyond our understandings. That's my counter of the whole Science disproves Religion debate. We don't know if there are Aliens that exist yet. We don't know if in places, beyond Earth, you can probably do/see some crazy stuff. Okay, let's imagine a planet that can sustain life that we know of. We launch a Space Shuttle over there and this astronaut goes around. We would have no idea of what's on that planet. It's kind of the same thing for Religion almost." I agree that there are things we don't know, but it's not unjust to try to prove/disprove beliefs on these matters. If you agree that it's not unjust to prove/disprove these beliefs, but still believe that it's unjust to prove/disprove someone's religion, then you must agree that this is a false analogy. If you argue that it's unjust to prove/disprove any of these beliefs, even matters of science, like different natural laws in different places("We don't know if in places, beyond Earth, you can probably do/see some crazy stuff"), then you argue that it's unjust to prove/disprove knowable things. However, you've already said that it's just to prove/disprove other's beliefs when their beliefs are known to be true or untrue. So, if you argue that it's unjust, then you contradict yourself. You said, "there's a difference between a religious opinion and a personal opinion. The ones you're talking about are PERSONAL opinions. Being gay has nothing to do with why we exist. It relates to your personal choice and likings.", but religion sometimes mandates certain personal opinions. When someone has a personal opinion because their religion tells them to, then it's a religious opinion. You said, "There's a difference between politics and religion. Politics directly and sometimes indirectly affects people. Religion doesn't affect anybody else other than yourself at all.", but this isn't true. Religion sometimes dictates that its followers act in ways that affect others. Even a religion that dictates that its followers spread the word of their religion, it affects others. If a political decision must be made, and said decision applies to some aspect of the decider's religion, and the decision is made based on the decider's religion, then that religion affects everyone subject to the effects of the decision. You said, "Why would someone's religion require you to kill children? That in itself is unjust. That's not a religion. To kill people is not a religion." The Quran requires the followers of Islam to behead those who leave the religion. The Old Testament requires stoning for countless crimes. If someone wishes to believe these things, then its part of their religion. If you say that the acts are unjust, then proving to them that it's unjust, which is disproving their religion, would be just. You said, "Like I said before, it is okay to disprove someone's religion when you know it's true. That's my main rebut." Your main rebut is to add an exception to your argument. Your main rebut is to say that, in that situation, Con is correct.