[quote=xAsunaWolfx]Because it can be offensive. 

It's almost respectful to give both equal grounds if it needs to be talked about. Or don't talk about it at all.[/quote]

Okay, I've only been reading, even when this thread got really bad and I wanted to respond, until I was directed to this line.

I want to delve into ad hominem. I won't, but boy howdy do I want to.

Instead, let me say this. Religious texts, for all mainstream western religions at least, include lines of things that contradict science. That is not conjecture, that is not a statement I say weakly, that is a fact. They all contain things that are presented as how the world is, but simply isn't. The moon is but a light, the earth is flat, we were all made as we are and used to live for thousands of years. These are things that are presented as true by religious texts.

These are things that are not backed up by empirical evidence.

In a class of science, ancient conjectures of pre to early literate people, should not be in equal footing or respect, to things that can be empirically verified and tested. You know what that isn't? Respectful to the actual pursuit of knowledge. It's insulting. 

Knowledge is not offensive. Truth is not offensive, and to say that we can't discuss truth because we don't give as much credence to ignorance, [i]wilful ignorance[/i], and the illusion of knowledge, as a viable alternative to knowledge, is beyond ludicrous.