Poll: How religious is hacker news?

I have wanted more adoption of community centers for a long time, just a place for children and adults to go for support and supplemental education. I could write a very long article about their benefits and reasons, but this probably isn't the appropriate forum to do that. A place where kids can get mentors and adults can get assistance for a wide variety of subjects would be extremely helpful to the community. This kind of place is usually only provided in poorer areas where it is then overcrowded and becomes much less useful.

Many parents assume kids get all the education for life in school. Teachers assume kids get most of their life education at home. This is not true all of the time but I've seen it far too often. The result is a lack of education and guidance for children. Some parents just don't have time for their kids, kids are left to learn on their own or from their environment, which is always less than optimal (yes, always exceptions to everything).

Colleges could offer credits for people who help staff and organize these places. Adults who were helped by these community centers could be encouraged to give back if it helped them in life.

Children in need of mentors should be the main area of focus in my opinion. They could call upon these people later in life if needed, almost like another parent (which not all people are fortunate enough to have). The children who were mentored would have a much higher chance of ensuring their mentor was taken care of later in life, when the mentor got old. There's just no downside from what I can tell, it's mostly a funding and organizing problem to solve.

Please don't take this the wrong way but excluding God from these centers would be important. Not everybody accepts that there is some magical being controlling everything, and many people have different gods. All of these people should be equally welcomed into community centers without fear of having God, Jesus, and the sins of the Devil preached to them constantly.

Yes you can as I am one.

Other: Jedi Knight

Agree. As much as I'm against religion, I found the software to be neat. The thread seemed to contain the same sentiment by multiple users.

Fundamentalist creationism is not an inescapable consequence of "religion" generally.

Can't speak for zaphar, but I for one have no problem believing that God could've created the world any way he felt like, including by letting evolution happen.

Despite being not merely religious but an actual Bible-believing Christian, I am nevertheless quite willing to accept that a good deal of scriptural text is metaphorical. A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical, so the idea that the Biblical creation account might not be intended as an accurate scientific account is Not A Problem.

Regarding other possible inconsistencies, I find that most of the ones people complain about are like evolution- not actually necessary inconsistencies if you think about it. For the rest, I assume that one or the other is either wrong or incomplete, and hold off judgment until either scientific concensus or doctrinal assertion are changed. When it comes to questions of scientific fact, I usually lean in favor of science. When it comes to matters of philosophy or ethics, I lean in favor of religion. And for reference, I don't usually consider sociology or social psychology to be very convincing "science".