Why is it common among religious believers to explain people disagreeing with them by saying those are bad people?

Cognitive dissonance. Rather than agreeing to disagree or considering that they might be wrong, their brain works out the conflict by concluding the messenger must be "bad".

There are actually other solutions. The messenger might be deceived, for example.

They may both be wrong, and they may both be right.

The analogy of the seven blind men feeling and describing an elephant comes to mind. One feels the legs and says the elephant is like a tree trunk. Then there is the blind man who missed the elephant entirely. He wanders around flailing his arms around the air proclaiming "there is no elephant! There is no elephant!"

Then there is the blind man sitting in the corner with his hands covering his ears as he rocks back and forth mumbling over and over, "there isn't any evidence and I'm not making any assertion, so I'm not wrong"

And they all think the others are lying and therefore bad people, when the fact is, they merely have different perspectives on the same subject.

The Atheist is just as religious if not more than the theist. The theist is a blind man sitting on a bench who hears the proclamations of the blind men feeling the elephant and they take their word on faith, but they may consider the words of the blind man proclaiming there is no elephant to be lies, because many more of the blind men have described feeling the elephant. Though they don't experience feeling the elephant directly, they believe on faith.

The Atheist believes that no deity exists, based on blind faith. There is no evidence that tells him no deity exists; in fact, the testimony of billions of people controverts his belief which is derived from his imagination. The Atheist must have the greatest faith of anyone to totally believe his own imagination over the facts presented by testimony.

And the Atheist is among the harshest critic of other religions, proclaiming them to be bad people, accusing all Catholic priests of being pedophiles, accusing all organized religions other than his own to be organized for the collection of money, etc.

The Atheist is a religious believer that most frequently explains people disagreeing with him by saying those are bad people.

This is a common tactic that people use in any discussion when they are losing the argument - in religion, politics or putting down the people in the next town or country.

When they cannot come up with actual data to support their claim, they switch to ridicule. It is a way of changing the subject or distract from the original issue.

In warfare, this ridicule is enhanced by the rulers to help instill hatred for the enemy. Horrible things (real or imagined) are said of the enemy such as that they eat babies or torture children.

When you hear someone ridiculing another, is usually means that they don't have any evidence or data to submit. In a way, it indicates that they have given up and surrendered the debate.

. .

If said people are honestly just disagreeing and not trying to pick a fight that would make the other party ignorant. I am religious and can't stand it when people respond to a logical argument with derision or ineptitude. It makes me sad to call myself by the same name and furious when I have to clean up the mess. PS. to all of you responding to a question with the same sort of derision and fear mongering you make me sick and are just as bad as the other problem!!

The same reason Republicans demonize Democrats. Because they can't formulate a logical argument to support their claims.

I got this helpful information from the link below. It deals with this problem in Christian circles only.

"While all these groups teach widely divergent theologies, they have in common the notion that true Christianity had died out many years ago and it needed to be restored to its original New Testament form. Some of these groups believe they alone are the embodiment of true Christianity, some going so far as to teach that all other groups, including mainline Protestant denominations, are not really Christians at all, having lost their way over the centuries to complete apostasy. They are convinced that the drift from Christian principles is so extreme as to render the church irredeemable, and, therefore, it must be completely rebuilt. Denying that past historical patterns have any validity at all, they are free to embrace what they understand to be pure biblical truth as revealed to the apostles.

At least two disastrous consequences can be expected to result from a zealous embrace of restorationist philosophy. First, it easily leads to a spirit of exclusivism and arrogance, not to mention error. The natural outcome of believing one’s own group has the corner on the truth is the despising of all others who claim the name of Christ, seeing them as apostates, or worse, tools of the devil. No spirit of Christian unity can survive such a mindset. One has only to look at the diverse beliefs that exist among the restorationists themselves, and the resulting animosity that accompanies them, to see the inevitable result of adopting such a belief system. Exclusivism leads to pride, a sin especially abhorred by God (Proverbs 16:5; James 4:6). In addition, exclusivism can provoke delusions of grandeur in its leaders, making possible all manner of erroneous interpretations, not to mention rewriting, of Scripture designed to fit it to the paradigm of the group, without regard for clear and concise biblical scholarship and exegesis.

The second, and far more destructive, result of restorationist philosophy is that it denies God’s ability, or willingness, to preserve the faith “once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), rejects His sovereignty over His people, and disavows His plan to bring to pass His will without fail, despite attempts by Satan and his minions to derail it. God did not send His Son to die on the cross for the sins of His people only to allow those same people to lapse into apostasy and languish there for 1800 years. Such a notion is not only absurd, but it defines God as a ruthless and capricious entity, not the loving and merciful Father God we know Him to be."

The link has more info, so do check it out because it covers the adamant stances and accusations made by modern groups like Mormons, JWs and others who think God is using them to 'replace' apostate Christendom. You will find rather a lot of their Qs and As on here calling those who disagree with them as being 'bad people' (spiritually speaking).

What else can they say? They have no definitive evidence for what they are saying, so they try to distract from that by pointing fingers elsewhere, hoping no one will notice they never supported their claim.

Because that's their only comeback in an argument they can't win.

Religious mind set: Any and all opposition must be destroyed, discredited or demonized.

Their religion is an extension of their ego..

Why do you judgementally imply that it is? I see little evidence.