The default position.

You are talking of politeness, I am talking of respect.

Well you are saying "they" now... but that doesn't matter. If i know they both haven't seen in the box i wouldn't believe either of them. I'd listen to their logic... if it sounds faulty (or a guess), i would rather make my own hypothesis (guess). 

So to be clear you reject both their claims ?

I know what you're trying to do and I know exactly why I am not an atheist among many other things I believe based on my alternative outlook on burden of proof. I would bet purple and it would not be rejecting both but accepting both, you just don't get it yet.

Only they rather than he or she. It is merely an androgynous pronoun. It is still only one "they".

In any case, i wouldn't believe said person in the scenario you are painting. Rational is right there could be more to it... but if it's just i know said person never looked and is telling me he/she knows... then, nope, not believable. 

Nothing, I see it completely inverted to what most do.

But you cannot prove that it isn't red.

So no claim needs to be demonstrated ever and all should be accepted equally with or without proof?

No i couldn't ... but blue would be a better guess in my opinion since it is a much more popular color. The probabilities of other colors are much more likely... green and blue... especially if the box is small. There are way more blue and green balls. Tennis balls, racket balls. Then... even in golf balls, red is not a popular color. So logic would tell me i have a good chance it's not a red ball and i'd be confident in not accepting said persons claim. 

Do you feel you need to have a reason to reject the claim?

Yes. Some things can change my opinion. It depends on the person's reasons for thinking it's red. If they are logical and believable, i would have more confidence in the color. 

They have absolute faith in the redness of the ball. Thay simply know. Unless you can prove them wrong they don't believe you have any reason to deny the balls redness.

Correct. For all I know the strangers have far more than 5 senses and/or far superior intellect and RANGE ON their senses such that they can perceive what to me 'makes no sense'. You cannot explain to a deaf person why you know the sound coming from a source is definitely of a certain pitch but what a fool she/he'd be to fold the hand rather than all-in. You wanna play like a pussy, you gonna end up in the dirt (and yes, so will those that bet wrong). Guaranteed failure is the least-safe strategy there is.

From how I am fluctuating between #1 and #3 consistently on the site's leaderboard (soon will be permanently #1 I predict Dec 15th or so) to how I ended up doing many things IRL that made no sense to people that failed and/or succeeded in hardcore ways, I am that one guy who will risk in all cases where not risking is guaranteed failure. When people say 'play it safe' it can indeed be the wiser option but more often than not it's the simpler, not wiser, option whereby one guarantees they never have got the highest reward they could out of the long term trades they engaged in.

I am not a flat-earther, a theist and furthermore a good debater (who puts too much effort into a seemingly fruitless skill and passion) because I just fancy being that way, I am actually looking at clues in reality and my life as well as other people and their advice in order to come up with the best way to be and live.

People who operate with your mentality can never ever be right about something insanely hard to find out, they will always guarantee being wrong about it because it's safer to admit you're wrong than risk thinking you're right in their eyes.

Safe =/= Simple

You are not 'safe' when you are having a strategy of reasoning and pursuing a goal that guarantees failure.

EXACTLY.

If that is the only case... i would simply smile and say, i don't believe you. I really don't care about faith only. There needs to be reasons and logic behind their decision.  

@rational madman

And you feel that is a good pathway to truth or do you not particularly care if you believe falsehoods? 

What if the claim were of a different nature? What if the claim were that the ball would be whatever color you believed it to be the moment before the box was opened?

Pls read PM you are unblocked now, our feud is over in my eyes. I was irritated by goldtop who I still have severe beef with and he will be dealt with soon by moderation as he is target-bullying not just me but ethang and others.

You came at a time when he had me very riled up and I had not had the best day so I snapped and blocked you to stop 'snapping' in a more overt way,

If you operate under your mentality (which I admit is what science we are taught at school brainwashed us into following) you end up always believing falsehoods. Ultimately your conclusion would be 'there is no colour of the ball' or 'the ball is all colours' and both are absolutely 100% guaranteed failure conclusions (atheism is not a case of guaranteed failure, in reality the chaos and randomness could have made all this happen at random so with that case it's that God has proven herself in so many ways, for me, and that that order of events makes more sense but I'm actually as atheist as you when it comes to the origin being random and not 'organised in a divine way' it's all chaos prior to the original being).

So, I care about believing falsehoods and don't enjoy realising I believed them but the pain is so small compared to the pleasure-burst of realising I was so right all along. I am not the type to fall for every conspiracy theory whatsoever but also not the type to go 'nutjob' as a reflex response.

The claim now under consideration is that the ball will be red if the person opens it because they believe it is red and any color you believe it to be the moment before the box is opened it will be. It may not be red when you open it but that does not mean it will not be red when they open it. 

Think nothing of it my friend. You may have felt like we were feuding but I never did. I enjoy a good argument but I'm not much for fighting and so I was never trying to fight with you.

Neither of these would be my ultimate conclusion. I recognize the possibility that the ball could be red but I do not believe that it is. It could be just about any color or combination of colors or there may be no ball at all but I don't believe any of those things either. Under those circumstances I simply feel the most reasonable thing is to not form a belief and instead admit that we don't know.

but that is GUARANTEED failure.

Yeah... i don't believe that either. If there isn't some kind of evidence for it to be red, i have no reason to believe it or not. I'd know i'm just guessing. 

Not being certain is not analogous with failure. The game is not to guess the ball's color but merely not to believe anything false about the ball's color. 

So do you feel that is the correct way to approach all claims?

I said I do not know, but I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the one claiming there is a red ball in the box.

In other words, I believe that he believes what he is saying. I don't know what is in the box.

This guy then arbitrarily defines a ball as being red.

Since he is claiming that there is a red ball in there, that means there is a red red ball.

I ask if he also uses the term ATM Machine.

Then I am told to accept the definition of what a ball is.

What is the point that I'm getting out of all this?

The OP has gone mad.

We have different win conditions, then.