5 ms·

Don't be so sensitive. Us 'non-Bible fanatics' are always very accepting of religious people in general. You should do the same.

by jggonz 14y ago

sp332 14y ago
You can't really speak for everyone who does not believe in the Bible. Intolerant atheists are not exactly rare, nor are followers of other religions who are not very accepting of bible-believers. Don't be so sensitive. I said "slightly", but it is definitely belittling. edited for clarity
- jemfinch 14y ago
  Please don't refer to atheists as "militant" unless they're wielding weapons and waging wars for atheism. There really are militant groups in this world, many of them militant in support of their religion; it's utterly unfair to put "atheists who oppose religion on Internet discussion boards" in the same group as true militants.
  - simon 14y ago
    More people have been killed by officially atheist governments (esp. in 20th century) than by any religions.
    - jeremyarussell 14y ago
      Where's the data to support this claim? You do understand there were the crusades and all the violence out of that. (Don't get me started on the wars actually talked about in the bible as well, where god says from Deuteronomy 20:14 "As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies." So basically he gave the warriors clearance to rape and pillage.)
      - Dove 14y ago
        Scan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_... The crusades are probably smaller, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of world population, than you realized. I'm not sure how many of those events you can officially put down to atheism, but the death toll from officially atheist states alone--e.g., the USSR--are pretty bad. My reading is that religiously motivated manmade disasters are a blip compared to the secularly motivated ones. Your reading may vary, though. :)
  - carlob 14y ago
    Though I sympathize with the plight of atheism (both militant and non-militant), you are wrong about your very alliterative definition of militant as someone who wields weapons and wages war. militant |ˈmilətənt| adjective combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods: a militant nationalist.
simon 14y ago
I do not find this to be the case here on HN. When there are difficult or tragic circumstances and we believers speak up to try to help or encourage, we get voted up, but the rest of the time, we get downvotes and negative responses.
- lotharbot 14y ago
  For the most part, people on Hacker News want to read thoughtful and insightful comments. They want to learn new things, or gain new perspective, or otherwise extract value from the comments they read. Comments about religious history (especially with sources) or religious artifacts (like manuscripts), clear explanations of interesting doctrines, and descriptions of how different religions/sects view some particular issue tend to be pretty well received. As a religious person, I've made a lot of comments along these lines (some about my own religion, some about other religions) and gotten a lot more upvotes than downvotes for them. Even the negative responses I get are thoughtful most of the time. Assertions that religion X is true/false, statements that aren't backed up by appropriate evidence, and preachy comments tend to be poorly received.
  - simon 14y ago
    I'm glad that you have had more positive experience on HN with faith/religious comments than I have. Others have made similar observations to mine. Some conversations have gone well, but there are more that have not. Most likely my own fault for calling people on their intolerance rather than just shrugging and finding another story to comment on. :-)
    - lotharbot 14y ago
      Remember that HN members aren't particularly concerned with being "tolerant". We tend to be very intolerant of weak or tired arguments, particularly those that don't seem to get basic facts straight (say, the kind of stuff you can find on wikipedia.) So, for example, an assertion that there's evidence of a worldwide flood, without a link to significant research, won't be taken well. But HN members do like to learn new and interesting things, even from foreign worldviews. If the idea of "speaking in tongues" came up, a quick explanation of the practice and the history (especially with links) would be quite welcome.

Don't be so sensitive. Us 'non-Bible fanatics' are always very accepting of religious people in general. You should do the same.

by jggonz 14y ago

Don't be so sensitive. Us 'non-Bible fanatics' are always very accepting of religious people in general. You should do the same.

sp332 14y ago

You can't really speak for everyone who does not believe in the Bible. Intolerant atheists are not exactly rare, nor are followers of other religions who are not very accepting of bible-believers. Don't be so sensitive. I said "slightly", but it is definitely belittling. edited for clarity

jemfinch 14y ago
Please don't refer to atheists as "militant" unless they're wielding weapons and waging wars for atheism. There really are militant groups in this world, many of them militant in support of their religion; it's utterly unfair to put "atheists who oppose religion on Internet discussion boards" in the same group as true militants.
- simon 14y ago
  More people have been killed by officially atheist governments (esp. in 20th century) than by any religions.
  - jeremyarussell 14y ago
    Where's the data to support this claim? You do understand there were the crusades and all the violence out of that. (Don't get me started on the wars actually talked about in the bible as well, where god says from Deuteronomy 20:14 "As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies." So basically he gave the warriors clearance to rape and pillage.)
    - Dove 14y ago
      Scan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_... The crusades are probably smaller, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of world population, than you realized. I'm not sure how many of those events you can officially put down to atheism, but the death toll from officially atheist states alone--e.g., the USSR--are pretty bad. My reading is that religiously motivated manmade disasters are a blip compared to the secularly motivated ones. Your reading may vary, though. :)
- carlob 14y ago
  Though I sympathize with the plight of atheism (both militant and non-militant), you are wrong about your very alliterative definition of militant as someone who wields weapons and wages war. militant |ˈmilətənt| adjective combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods: a militant nationalist.

simon 14y ago

I do not find this to be the case here on HN. When there are difficult or tragic circumstances and we believers speak up to try to help or encourage, we get voted up, but the rest of the time, we get downvotes and negative responses.

lotharbot 14y ago
For the most part, people on Hacker News want to read thoughtful and insightful comments. They want to learn new things, or gain new perspective, or otherwise extract value from the comments they read. Comments about religious history (especially with sources) or religious artifacts (like manuscripts), clear explanations of interesting doctrines, and descriptions of how different religions/sects view some particular issue tend to be pretty well received. As a religious person, I've made a lot of comments along these lines (some about my own religion, some about other religions) and gotten a lot more upvotes than downvotes for them. Even the negative responses I get are thoughtful most of the time. Assertions that religion X is true/false, statements that aren't backed up by appropriate evidence, and preachy comments tend to be poorly received.
- simon 14y ago
  I'm glad that you have had more positive experience on HN with faith/religious comments than I have. Others have made similar observations to mine. Some conversations have gone well, but there are more that have not. Most likely my own fault for calling people on their intolerance rather than just shrugging and finding another story to comment on. :-)
  - lotharbot 14y ago
    Remember that HN members aren't particularly concerned with being "tolerant". We tend to be very intolerant of weak or tired arguments, particularly those that don't seem to get basic facts straight (say, the kind of stuff you can find on wikipedia.) So, for example, an assertion that there's evidence of a worldwide flood, without a link to significant research, won't be taken well. But HN members do like to learn new and interesting things, even from foreign worldviews. If the idea of "speaking in tongues" came up, a quick explanation of the practice and the history (especially with links) would be quite welcome.