[mgh2]

I get you, HN has a general anti-religious view on things.

However, as with any information, bias hurts any analysis (in any form data is presented). A quote is just that, a quote.

No matter your beliefs, information is neutral and should be inquired for curiosity purposes in HN, not personal opinion.

[duckfang]

No. That's called bible-thumping.

In our world, it's trivially easy to get hold of any major religion's works, and only moderately difficult to get hold of smaller religion's works, primarily due to translation issues.

And in light of context, you weren't comparing the writings or showing different religions' thoughts on human longevity - you were implicitly stating that your choice of religion was the right one, by stating it matter-of-factly.

[mgh2]

Well, that was your personal opinion and interpretation on just a quote. Appreciated, but will see how HN reacts.

[tmp231]

Secularism is its own religion and gets quoted often around here. Guess you’ll just have to learn to be tolerant.

[dTal]

Unless you want to debase the world "religion" until it no longer has any meaning - no, it isn't.

[tmp231]

It’s a set of beliefs about how you should view and act in the world, that’s good enough.

[dTal]

Those are a "philosophy" or "ethical framework" or "moral code", not a religion. Religion by definition entails belief in the supernatural - i.e., that which there is no evidence for, or we would simply call it "physics".

[tmp231]

If you de facto deny that supernatural events can’t happen, I’d say you have some pretty strong religious beliefs. If you want to deny that, I’d say that just means you’re not particularly self aware. You can play word games all day, but at the end of the day you’re operating from a set of unproven religious presuppositions about how the world operates (naturalism) and filtering everything through that lens. But I don’t think we’re going to get any further. Good day, sir.