61–70 of 85 posts
[flagged]
An article being somehow provocative isn't license to flame. If you can't respond in a spirit of curious conversation, there are other threads where that may be easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe in God, but this is historically correct. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights as conceived by the United Nations traces its roots to the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen that was a product of the French revolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of... The preamble of this document directly references God: > In consequence, the National Assembly…
That's a declaration. Which apart from mentioning a supreme being (not the Christian god) has its roots in other concepts. However, the article is typical Christian propaganda insinuating that atheists are amoral and you need the benevolent guidance of a supernatural being (and its church) to behave like a decent human being.
Delusion is delusion, however one wants to call it in religious terms, e.g. christianity, islamism, etc. Attempt to apply some rationality to such, regardless of the topic, is simply ridiculous. But - hey! - let's just have another blog, just in case...
Has the title been changed?
(From the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Btw, when we do these edits we nearly always use some representative phrase from the article itself. I'm pretty sure that was the case here.)
[flagged]
Please don't go straight into religious flamewar. We're trying to avoid that here, and jumping immediately into it doesn't really sit with that. An article being somehow provocative isn't license to flame. If you can't respond in a spirit of curious conversation, there are other threads where that may be easier. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't go straight into religious flamewar. We're trying to avoid that here, and jumping immediately into it doesn't really sit with that. An article being somehow provocative isn't license to flame. If you can't respond in a spirit of curious conversation, there are other threads where that may be easier. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
A curious conversation would come if the author made an argument with more substance. This doesn't have the merit to any response besides the ones that point out how incredibly flawed the original argument is. It's hard to assume an intention of honest debate.
From a quick look at the article, I don't think you're doing it justice—and from what little I know of Holland, he's a serious writer on this topic. However, that's all beside the point. Even if the article is as bad and provocative as you say, it's not ok to fulminate about it on HN. Rather, the thing to do is (a) not post about that, and (optionally) (b) find a different thread to post to, one where you can do so in a curious spirit.
Curious conversation happens when commenters are in a curious state. If you're not in a curious state, you shouldn't be posting. Denunciatory rhetoric is not what we want here.
You were hardly the only offender in this thread, which is one of the most embarrassing things I've seen on HN in quite a while.
We are desensitized to all the simplistic silly intuitions that are reinforced by Christianity. Like the idea that good and evil are one dimensional opposite things that you can sort of add up to decide if your life is ok. Or the idea that there's a point where you can stop looking for evidence and faith without sufficient evidence is a virtue. Or that there's some ideal of bodily health since we are made in Gods ima…
> Appealing to human rights just because we say so is as baseless as appealing to astrology or the will of Zeus. You are this close to a realisation.
Yeah, this is a load of nonsense. The worst part is this essays ahistorical line of thinking. Like highlighting the Romans bad behavior without examining things like the crusades and chattel slavery which used Christianity as a defense. And it’s Christian supremacist since he leaves out the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other religion that believes in human rights.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
We are desensitized to all the simplistic silly intuitions that are reinforced by Christianity. Like the idea that good and evil are one dimensional opposite things that you can sort of add up to decide if your life is ok. Or the idea that there's a point where you can stop looking for evidence and faith without sufficient evidence is a virtue. Or that there's some ideal of bodily health since we are made in Gods ima…
Please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar, nor generic tangents. Neither of those things makes for good HN threads. Especially not religious flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
And since it's a discussion forum I thought taking contrarian position was fine.
I stand corrected that religion is a special topic on HN as nearly everywhere else that can be freely promoted and praised but any critique is in bad taste.