The article itself is about a man validating the truth behind his drug induced spiritual experience of god.

I can't use science to disagree with that opinion because it's religious flame war?

Then logically the article itself is instigating religious flame war.... He argues his side I argue mine.

I don't think your being impartial here. His post attacks my beliefs and I attack his in return who is instigating war here? Your saying he can attack my belief but I can't argue for mine.

Are you saying that if an article shows up on HN supporting logic and science and atheism no religious person can argue against it or offer their opinion?

It's not about the article or the topic, it's about the quality of response. Begging your pardon, your comment was noticeably lower-quality, and clearly flamebait.

Grandiose rhetoric on an inflammatory topic makes for low-quality threads and flamewars. We don't want that here.

Grandiose rhetoric... Is the article itself not grandiose? God and spiritual experiences are grandiose topics. Take a very careful look at the language I used here dang. It's carefully worded to avoid personal attacks.

I'm willing to bet your being biased here and you can't see it. It is very hard to recognize in yourself without asking for personal opinions. I'm willing to bet that you personally highly highly disagree with what I wrote.

If I am right then I think it's quite likely you are completely unaware that your personal opinion influenced you to see what I wrote as grandiose because frankly this entire topic is grandiose. He makes grand claims about the nature of reality citing drug induced experiences as evidence, is that not grandiose?