Sorry, but you didn't make that clear. Considering you quoted me and didn't bother to point out that you disagreed with what I said, I assumed we were in agreement.

And I disagree. It seems too natural to be called immature. But that's entirely subjective.

Bweh, fine. I thought you'd give something easier. I can more or less accept that as true though I just skimmed it. I was pretty much going to use that to something to the same effect to say that anything is just about as true as anything else.

Going back, I'd like to ask, solely for the purpose of discussion, why exactly you value stuff that has been observed. And, I'd like to add, whose reliable observations would you trust and why those observations prove anything.

As for your on-topic comment, I think everyone knows how rotten Christianity has been over the ages. But you have to see that that has dropped tremendously since (I'd presume the Renaissance when everything went secular, but I'm not sure). Also, the Christians who are offended easily are rarely the same ones who went around (or go around) killing people for their beliefs. It's completely unfair to judge one Christian by the acts of another, yet I've noticed that people seem to judge all religious people by the acts of some Christians in the past. A lot of religions have little to no blood on their hands.

As for your final edit, I indeed am, but there's some practicality to it. Whilst it's certainly not ideal, like it or not, you have to respect religions more simply because there are more people to be offended. If you're in a minority like those who believe in fairy tales, you'll have to suffer somewhat.

It's the same logic as only having a males and females bathroom. I bet it offends people who are classified as neither, but it's simply impractical to waste my time building a third one when so few people would use it.

well, I cant speak for other religous books, but the New Testament (the Bible) isnt anything like that.

Alright, do let me know why. As far as I remember the new testament has the exact same merits as King Arthur.

Because New Testament is book about teachings of Christ.

Just going to intrude this once: Comparing a holy book to a normal look, isn`t that fair, is it? You may not believe but there`s a difference there. And besides that, that book is sacred to some people.

That`s all.

So one book is special just because some people think it's special, but another book witht he exact same merits isn't special?

I once met someone who actually believed in the nordic gods, does that make the nordic mythology sacred as well? How do you define sacred? Just by people's feelings?

First of all, when someone tells that they have believe or have is sacred, not just personally but like a religion, that shows how important it is to them and that alone deserves respect.
He believed? Ok. Personally i don`t but i would still respect his belief, even if i thought it was absurd. Something sacred is something that normally is above a person and defines him or her - and with it everything that is related to it.

With religion, God and everything related to Him is sacred. The holy book is sacred for that reason alone. It`s His teachings, His view on life, etc. It`s the book, the peace of paper that it`s sacred per se, it`s what it`s written and the meaning of there being such a book.