If your calling someone names than yes, it`s your problem because with an insult you (wish to) hurt someone`s feelings.
Don`t you understand what it means to have something seen as holy?
You are just relativizing holyness just for the sake of an argument. But even if you did, people that really are tolerant and respectful, would still avoid being desrespectful of that what you consider to be holy. That being, not insulting it.
Truth has nothing to do with this. All you are showing is that if someone/thought fits your boundaries you respect, if it doesn`t you don`t respect it or them. Does that seem like it`s fair?

I was actually not promoting the notion that you one has to observe something to believe it. We have a brain that can process certain information. That information can give us evidence of the existence of a certain object or event. This does not require direct observation. I was simply debating that fact that Vlad321 was arguing that they will only believe what they can observe. No matter what mathematical evidence scientists can claim, they still do not know scientifically exactly how the universe began. They can have all sorts of models and statistics but the facts are the facts. No one observed or has evidence of the first building blocks of the universe beginning. In light of this I cannot see how anyone can believe that there is not a higher power that started life as we know it. For this higher power to create such things as our complex bodies, time, space, ect it would have to be an all powerful being to do such things. Anyone on this earth can observe that everything works in unison. Our organs are mechanisms that perform tasks. Where did the laws come from that directed our organs to function and life to begin? Something cannot be set into motion unless something sets it into motion.

Say that in the beginning of time and space there was nothing but a tennis ball. Can that tennis ball alone move itself and begin creating the universe? No. Therefore those that claim there is no God (higher being) are fooling themselves. You cannot have a universe begin just by a particle of dust that has no knowledge. A higher being with limitless knowledge and power could set in motion what we know as the universe today. In order to create life and the laws of nature there must have been a knowledgeable being that caused these things to come about.

I don't wish to hurt someone's feelings, I am just stating how things stand. If a person's feelings are hurt from that, then they should probably find out why they are hurt from such a thing and change something, because the way things stand won't change. In this case, I outlined clearly how things stand, and what is by far the most likely outcome. Yes, I call people who believe in it idiots, but that is by my definition of an idiot, which I steted is believining in something against which exists insurmountable evidence. Which is a VERY objective measure. It has nothing to do with what I believe or not.

TO further prove my point, tell me which statements of mine are wrong. During that time women were heavily punished for adultery. It takes a man having sex and ejaculating in a woman's vagina to conceive a baby. People will go through great lengths to survive. Which one of these claims is wrong and twisted by my personal beliefs? Furthermore, using purely objective logic and reason, you can add all those up to see that if a woman got pregnant by someone other than her husband, she would probably lie. Therefore, objectively Mary is NOT holy. However if you continue to believe that she is holy, you should NOT be offended by these facts presented to you. If you are, switch beliefs.

Truth is objective, and it is never an insult. I am stating the most probable cause, with overwhelming evidence to back me up, about Mary, and therefore I am not insulting her.

Let me be clearer on what is the point.
Here you have someone who is considered holy - with more than reasons to do so. And at the same time someone comes and does not see it like that. Ok, two visions. So, by your standards, to you there`s not amount of overwhelming evidence, therefore you end up not respecting it as it`s not worthy of being respected and tolerated (i may have jumped a step or two, i know, but the result is the same); here you have someone who seeing it as holy naturally is offended by such claims when to him there`s an amount of overwhelming evidence.
You see me insulting your views?

You do not wish to hurt anyone`s feelings but you can`t even place yourself in other people`s shoes and see how he/she think or feels about something. You reduced tolerance and respect to how you think it should be and that`s where the problem resides.
To really be tolerant and respectful we gotta understand where others come from and live with differences of opinion. You say it not a question of believing, but in this case, it`s exactly it, as what i consider sacred or holy is in that context. So in this view, i do consider Mary to be Holy and Virgin and an insult like the one you used is really offensive.
If all you do is consider reason the only perfect source of knowledge, you will, in this case, really not respect religions and those who follow them. Reason doesn`t explain everything, no matter how hard we try because we aren`t perfect. So, for example, science will never accept conceiving without intercourse because it`s limited to what defines it, that doesn`t mean it´s not possible. It seems that i am relativizing things, but i am really not. For another example, science nor reason, per se, will really understand love because it`s mostly felt, something that they can`t apreehend as it´s not in their boundaries.

Yes I see how it is insulting. However, I would love to see his overwhelming evidence, and I would wager that his evidence is not only underwhelming, but thoroughly made up, therefore invalid. In the end it all comes down to what we have evidence for and against. As I mentioned before, there are many things about the christian god against there is no evidence against, and that is fine. However there are a great amount of things aginst which we do have evidence, and as such there is no reason to believe in them.

Lastly, what you are describing is blind faith, and blind faith is a terrible thing in any form. I guess I should have explained this earlier. Whether someone is putting their blind faith in a dictator who murders millions, or a benevolent god, it's all equally foolish. Faith within reason is fine, blind faith is idiotic. Every idea and belief should be questioned, and deserves to be questioned. It doesn't matter what it is. You can question those ideas, and ideas should be perfected.

TO prove my point even further as to why you should only belive things for which evidence exists I will address your whole example of love. Love is actually a very basic feeling, and there is a pretty good scientific explanation. The second most powerful instinct of any animal is reproduction. Love is an evolved feeling that helps in that regard, just the way pain is the emotion we evolved to help with the survival instinct. Those who have it, more or less raise a better child, thus being suprior at reproducing. Even if the family is poor, if the emotion of love exists within it, the child will probably be far better off and have a far better chance of reproducing down the line as well. Basically, love's existance only comes down to being able to reproduce more successfully. I hate to break your bubble, but that is all there is to love.

Ah, but when he criticizes your claim about who's baby Jesus's daddy, you say he's insulting you.  This proves that you do not accept that post.  Since you didn't reply to it that I recall, I thought you hadn't paid attention to it. 

vagabond is right and you are wrong. 

1. 
OK, so we've established that not being aware of God and Jesus won't send you to hell.  To go to hell wou have to "reject him whilst knowing him".  I'll come back to this.  By the way, does this mean they go to Heaven, or is there a third option? 

You now say that believing takes a leap of faith.  You are admitting that the evidence is insufficient, people have to just believe it.  What follows from this is that anyone who doesn't take that leap of faith, who doesn't believe, doesn't know God, and therefore doesn't go to Hell. 

I don't think those miracles happened because of God.  I suspect that either they were strange or amazing coincidences, or hallucinations, or just didn't happen. 

I do have friends thank you very much. 

2.
Then it was a terribly worded example. 

And I would argue that you can't absolve someone of deliberately setting up horrible actions just because there was someone else with free will further down the line.  That's kicking shit downhill to an absurd extreme. 

3. 
I'll get on that later. 

I mean, I doubt Hitler personally murdered any Jews, and if he did it wasn't many; does that mean he bears no responsibility for the Holocaust? 

Seems to me like the only reason theologians changed the definition was to conver up the fact that their beleifs were irrational in the first place. Ah, I don't know why I engage in such conversations. They are just so pointless, when you can always bend reality.

You've admited to being ignorant of some of the science and some of the analogies you make really do show it.

Firstly, you make a common mistake and place human ideas and values of order and creation into the world and universe around us. It's the nature of the human brain to find patterns in an attempt to make sense of the world and you interpret the world as having layers of order in areas of chaos.

Furthermore, you say:

No matter what mathematical evidence scientists can claim, they still do not know scientifically exactly how the universe began. They can have all sorts of models and statistics but the facts are the facts. No one observed or has evidence of the first building blocks of the universe beginning. In light of this I cannot see how anyone can believe that there is not a higher power that started life as we know it.

Why should anyone believe in a higher power when there is no evidence and no mathematical models for one. On one side you have models and calculations based on data gathered from a range of different instruments, on the other you have blind faith with no questions. One method will always improve and give us more information. The other will never give anything more concrete then "God did it".

Chemistry and physics also explain much of the complexity in the universe and will constantly strive to make the information more accurate. You say things work in unison, and they will.... for a while. For instance, what's the appendix for? (other than to randomly kill you). Science explains it as an artifact of our evolution and had a use at some point. Things work in unison, until they don't. You're placing order in the chaos of the human body.

You say there has to be a higher being to created the universe and the laws of nature. I have to ask, why?