Religious flamewar has to do with denunciatory rhetoric against other people's religious views. It doesn't matter whether you subscribe to $religion or $no-religion. It matters not to have angry, repetitive battles. We want thoughtful, curious new conversation here, and it's not possible to have both.
"Magical beliefs" not "magic" as in a party trick, but as in beyond the limits of reality, comprehension, and understanding, like the literary genre of magical realism which is fiction that diverges spontaneously into unreal elements. Most religious texts include a great deal of mythological parables that have been inherited, tuned, and reframed. "Ancient holdover" as in many religions draw-on previous religions and include practices that could've started possibly 4 millennia or more BP. In addition there are many rituals, acts, and practices which are questionable: chicken sacrifices, muta'a marriage to underage girls, suicide bombings, IEDs, bombing civilians, circumcision, FGM, abstinence lack of education/blame/shame, Vatican's wealth, communities shunning people for minor infractions, and exclusion of women from education/driving/public independence.
I think we would be letting ourselves be beholden to crybullies / bullies if we self-censor and let other people's beliefs limit what we can discuss because other people might not use personal responsibility to behave rationally and reasonably. I don't understand how someone can be responsible for another adult's behavioral choices. What's your take?
For centuries, many Irish believed some people were replaced by imposters called changelings and then they used this belief to attack, banish, or murder them. I think that's an example of a terrible belief that should be ridiculed, discussed, debunked, and eliminated. There are many types and classifications of on net harmful beliefs that inflict suffering. There are also plenty of beliefs that seek to be at peace with the human condition and with the nature of suffering, like the irreligious parts of Buddhist philosophy.
If this or any public forum isn't "appropriate" to discuss undiscussable taboos, haven't we ceased to be a liberal, open, curious, and reasonable debate society that seeks to advance enlightenment?
I'm not going to participate in any flamewars because "it takes two to tango" and I don't see the point of vitriol for the purpose of attacking, or projecting negativity, to someone you don't know. But I would ask questions if there legitimately-curious points in-between the pixels of other people's burning desire to express their anger unproductively. :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27012825
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27011929
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27012837
Two religions, same issue. If there were a third post about a third religion and a fourth about a fourth, we'd see the same problem with those.
HN commenters need to learn not to post when they're not in a curious state. When a person gets activated or provoked on a topic that they feel strongly about, that's not likely to be a curious state. One needs to pause until thoughtful conversation becomes possible again. This is not easy—it's something we all need to work on.
When the topic is divisive—and religion is maybe the most divisive topic of all—multiply the above by 100x.
p.s. Putting @dang in threads is a no-op. I only saw your comment randomly. If you want to tell us or ask us something, you should email [email protected], as the site guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.