We all disagree, but I think many of us have come to terms with the fact that someone is wrong. And we have respectful discussion within that understanding. I mean - it's fine to say that something is 'most true' for people, but at the end of the day, when it comes to me and a Jewish or Muslim or Athiest friend - only one of us will be right - because of what our faiths are based on. Either there is a God or there's not. Either Jesus is God or he's not. He can't be God for me and not exist for someone else. It sounds like an aggressive point of view, but it's just matter of fact to me. If someone else is right, then I'm wrong. And if I'm right, then someone else is wrong. I've heard about many paths to the same God, but given that many faiths don't subscribe to that theory - even if many paths is right, that would make the faith wrong
This reminds me of a particular Rowan Atkinson skit where he is welcoming people to Hell, but I will keep the details of that one to myself . But along these lines, because there can only logically be the conclusion that someone must be wrong, then surely any moral arguments which are based on religious teachings must be discounted? Surely only secular, logical "harm-based" analyses are the only ones capable of withstanding scrutiny? For example, if you say abortion is wrong because God says so, but it later transpires that there is no God, then the previous argument is invalid. In which case you would have to rely on an analysis of abortion which does not rely on religion. I know this is a bit OT, but this whole thread seems to be.....

(I must disclose my athesim in all fairness but I don't think this detracts form my point. I support people having their own religious beliefs but reject strongly any suggestion that a person's religious stance gives them the right to dictate issues of morality and how that impinges on my own decisions.)