Don't be so sensitive. I said "slightly", but it is definitely belittling.
edited for clarity
militant |ˈmilətənt| adjective combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods: a militant nationalist.
The crusades are probably smaller, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of world population, than you realized.
I'm not sure how many of those events you can officially put down to atheism, but the death toll from officially atheist states alone--e.g., the USSR--are pretty bad. My reading is that religiously motivated manmade disasters are a blip compared to the secularly motivated ones. Your reading may vary, though. :)
When there are difficult or tragic circumstances and we believers speak up to try to help or encourage, we get voted up, but the rest of the time, we get downvotes and negative responses.
Comments about religious history (especially with sources) or religious artifacts (like manuscripts), clear explanations of interesting doctrines, and descriptions of how different religions/sects view some particular issue tend to be pretty well received. As a religious person, I've made a lot of comments along these lines (some about my own religion, some about other religions) and gotten a lot more upvotes than downvotes for them. Even the negative responses I get are thoughtful most of the time.
Assertions that religion X is true/false, statements that aren't backed up by appropriate evidence, and preachy comments tend to be poorly received.
Some conversations have gone well, but there are more that have not. Most likely my own fault for calling people on their intolerance rather than just shrugging and finding another story to comment on. :-)
But HN members do like to learn new and interesting things, even from foreign worldviews. If the idea of "speaking in tongues" came up, a quick explanation of the practice and the history (especially with links) would be quite welcome.