I respect people, full stop. I don't respect beliefs or ideas because they don't deserve any respect. Beliefs and ideas are tools we use to interact with the world. The more in-line with reality they are, the better decisions we can make. If I think someone's beliefs are unjustified, I'm going to say so, because I care about other people. I'm not attacking them, I'm attacking their beliefs. Unjustified beliefs can often cause those who hold them to take action that harms themselves or others.
I don't talk about this question because I expect to get people to change their minds (although it has happened before). I talk about it because it's an unresolved question about reality, which means I want to know the answer. I only carry on these discussions as long as I'm enjoying it, and I hope the people I'm talking to follow the same rule. It's not like I go around saying "hey, have you heard the good news? there's no god!". That's just not how it works.
What I'm not going to do is leave it alone just because someone says the word faith. Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason for what they believe. Beliefs backed by faith deserve no respect, just like any other belief. In fact, they deserve criticism, because faith is a really bad way of knowing what's true.

Your definition of faith is so broad as to be useless. There isn't absolute proof of anything, really. By your definition, I would have faith in absolutely everything I believe except for tautological statements like the logical absolutes. By definition, faith is belief not backed up by proof. If you've got proof, then great, share it.

You say that god judges people, and I'm well aware of your theology. But my question for you is: as someone who doesn't believe in god, do you think I'm going to hell? Because if I thought there were a god who would send people to hell for not believing in him, I would do my best to convince people of that. In that case, I wouldn't be in any position other than worshiping out of fear of a complete monster, but my point still stands.

One of the few things I like in the bible is 1 Peter 3:15, and if you don't want to follow it, fine, every Christian on the planet is selective about what parts of their religion they follow. But I would like to hear what your reason is.

I find this notion that you're supposed to love everyone very odd. I don't love you, I don't even know you. I value love far more than that. I care about you because we're part of one big, if a bit dysfunctional, family. We all depend on one another, and I care about the well being of my fellow humans, even if I don't necessarily like all of them. But why would you devalue the concept of love by applying it to such absurd extremes?

We don't have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus even existed, and certainly not enough to believe the supernatural claims. But even supposing it's true, why do I have to accept Jesus or be tortured forever? Why are those the only two options? I'm not okay with this proposition that no matter how small a bad thing you do, you have to accept Jesus to be forgiven or you get tortured forever.

Besides, if you think that I have a chance to change my mind after I die, then why should I believe? According to what you've said, the best thing for me to do is go with the evidence and live my life as if this is the only opportunity to enjoy anything ever. If you're right, then I'll deal with that when it happens. But why should I spend any of the one and only life I know I'm going to get worrying or hoping for an afterlife that I have no reason to think exists?

You still haven't given a reason why you believe. You've just presented part of your proposition and said that's why. The consequences of a proposition don't have a bearing on its truth unless the consequences are a contradiction. What is your justification for believing what you believe?

Then why is it that across the board, in everything we can measure, there is a strong negative correlation between religiosity and societal health? Everything from rape, murder, poverty, income disparity, starvation, longevity, infant mortality, teen pregnancy, STD rates. Among industrialized nations, the more secular, the less serious all those problems are. Japan is one of the most secular countries in the world, lowest rape rate. The bible doesn't teach what you claim it teaches unless you look at a very restricted portion of it, but if its teachings really are so good, then why do highly religious countries like the US have these problems so much worse than more secular countries? Women are no longer the property of their fathers or husbands, we don't consider it okay to own slaves or stone people to death because they tried to lead someone to a different god. We didn't get over those things because of religion, we got over them in spite of religion.

Things are better than they ever have been because secularism has dragged religion kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Secular morality is superior because it tells us to really think about our actions and their consequences, instead of things being good or bad by edict. The problem with telling someone that you shouldn't kill people because there's this god you can't prove exists is that if they rightly begin to question what you've said, they will question everything connected to it, including the idea that we shouldn't kill one another. Besides, according to you, if someone goes out and kills someone and then repents to god after they die, nothing happens to them, and their victim would get to live on in an afterlife. If this is the one and only life we're going to get, then we have a reason to solve problems right here and now. Not only is it fallacious to appeal to the consequences of a belief to prove it, but your belief doesn't even win if we do that.

I'm sorry, if one person came to me and told me that their cancer was cured by drinking arsenic, I wouldn't believe them. I don't buy the excuse that the vast majority of people are just not using arsenic right. Religion has an overwhelmingly negative impact on our society. Maybe your particular breed of Christianity isn't negative, but you still provide credence by using the same name and revering the same holy book.

The notion that the bible teaches love and acceptance is complete nonsense. This is a book that explicitly condones slavery, claims that god ordered genocide and human sacrifice and rape. This is a book that claims that god will send people for hell simply for not being willing to believe an absurd and unbelievable claim without any evidence whatsoever. Slaveholders in the US used the bible to justify slavery. People in Africa kill their children because they think they're witches. The fundamentalists, by definition, have a far stronger basis in scripture than you do. And if I believed in any sort of creator, I would not dare attach its name to the evils of the bible.

If you want to be loving and accepting, great, but don't claim that it's because of the bible. You have a secular morality, just like I do. You know it's not okay to own slaves. You know the actions of that band of murdering, raping, pillaging Jews described in the bible are not okay. You know it's not okay to stone people or for god to have ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son, but you're clinging to this superstition, and trying your hardest to justify it in the face of the absence of any reason to believe it. I'm morally superior to the god described in the bible and so are you. You are better than that book, and it saddens me to see people buy into such a vile and hateful and nonsensical bronze age text.