Hacker News Reader

1) It’s hard to say “no” to this because it’s not clear what you mean. Do you mean to say that I’m painting religion in the guise of religion?

2) here are several definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

View on HN

1. Him means the person you're replying to. Your argument is clearly to paint him in a religious light. You need something more substantial than "other theists say similar things". You need concrete proof to draw a conclusion.

2. The question is whether you can show that what the person you're replying to is arguing in favor of is not science. Pasting some definitions proves neither that you understand them nor that they apply.

>You need concrete proof to draw a conclusion

I think we found a point we can agree upon!

The person salmonfamine was replying to already painted himself (or herself) in a religious light. I see no justification for characterizing salmonfamine's argument as "to paint him in a religious light" -- and since salmonfamine explicitly said "I am not an atheist or an agnostic", it seems you're arguing that one religious person is trying to stigmatize another by labelling them as religious. Not very likely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com