Steve.. you said: " Your beliefs and assertions have as much foundation as Santa and the tooth fairy, childISH. A useful distinction. "

Yes... useful, but in the case of religious beliefs, not quite comparable. I gave up Santa & the tooth fairy (and the Easter Bunny) by the age of 7 or so... but God persisted until I was about 16. (That is, the 'god' of the Christian bible.)

It is fairly easy to link Santa and the tooth fairy to adult tales to amuse children, but the idea of God(s) is in a different category, no matter what culture it is in. Being concerned with the unfathomable mysteries of Being leads even adults who smile at Santa Claus to worry about 'where we/it all came from'. I have, as you have, decided that I cannot know about that, so I don't worry about it in the abstract..... but I DO react when those who take god(s) literally & seriously affect the fabric of my culture with contradictory & negative activities.
The problem is, some.. like Quakers... just quietly worship and act in ways that don't bother others much, while some openly proselytize and try to insert their version of morality, culture, etc. into education, politics and medicine...etc.---- and there are hundreds of steps between Quakers & radical fundamentalists.

I put Pete somewhere near the Quakers as a practical matter. His theories are extreme, but as far as I know, his actions are not. He has not tried to persuade ME to join some fundamentalist church, and he has not, as far as I can tell, advocated teaching his views in his local schools.... thus, I can discuss science & philosophy with him without any notion of 'offensive' clouding our debate.
I must just conclude that we load our definition of 'offensive' with different connotations.