lolokthe archaic dogmatism of institutional religions. Hardly an echo chamber of irreligious supremacism.
Classic. Religious people can't deal with any type of criticism. I wonder why?
Here we go. An Internet conversation about religion goes meta and the adhomenems present themselves. The first stone cast is by...? I also enjoyed the immediate assumption that because I dislike anti-theism that must make me religious. In one comment you have demonstrated that you aren't an atheist; you are an anti-theist. You just can't help yourself when it looks like religion can be taken down a peg.
The point of the article was that I don't define my self by what I don't believe in. So I am as much an anti-theist as I am an anti anything else that I think is untrue. I'm perfectly allowed to have that opinion. That doesn't make Hubski or the discussion generated by this post an echo chamber of irreligious supremacism. This entire discussion thread openly discusses spirituality and how we all find it in our lives. EDIT: And you "cast the first stone" by calling this discussion thread and Hubski "an echo chamber of irreligious supremacism". So I defended myself and Hubski.
I like how most of the time I've seen someone complaining about ad hominem responses on hubski, AD HOMINEM is spelled incorrectly. Why, the last time I was accused of an ad hominem, I was in fact accused of an ad homonym attack. That one might have been a predictive text error due to phone software, but it still makes me smile.
I'm only one voice here, but I think an argument is immediately stronger and more appealing when it's spelled correctly. Spelling & editing come from a different part of the brain from the passionate argument, so when writers temper their passion with reason, they are able to proofread, and be polite. What do you think Rico? Does someone's bad spelling make you proceed with caution?
For people who are speaking in their first language, I agree with you. If someone can't take the time to check that the language they've been using their whole life is correct, I find myself wondering how thorough/thoughtful they've been in coming to their views and conclusions. Of course, this excludes the occasion honest mistake.
Spelling is not always indicative of intelligence or competence, but in the vacuum of the internet where users are already grasping for contextual cues, spelling and grammar can go a long way toward creating the sense that a given user is a-- well, not a "reliable narrator" but a "reliable commenter," as it were. Also, to put forth an argument is to open the door to criticism. The accusation of an ad hominem attack, when the very accusation is incorrectly spelled or applied, certainly gives a reader an opportunity to doubt the veracity of the assertion. So, in isolated interactions, then yes, sometimes poor spelling does make me proceed with caution. However, if I have had prior interactions with a user, then I am more likely to let spelling, grammar or usage slide if I have already seen that they are a "reliable commenter" much in the same way that I would forgive malapropisms or other mistakes with an acquaintance who I know to be intelligent. If you are asking if I proceed with caution when I respond to comments with poor spelling as I think the user might be in an impassioned state, well then I'd have to say no, but I might word my response in such a way that I felt my meaning would immediately be apparent. The old truism bandied about amongst EFL teachers is that "one is truly fluent in a language when one can win an argument in it."
My original comment was a joke. Even if it were taken literally, I don't think hubski is an echo chamber, but how long do you think it will take when religion is referred to as archaic dogma and good for nothing? And how is this thread supposed to be open to all forms of spirituality and searches for it when religion is walked all over like that? Surely if hubski doesn't allow 'downvoting' then it should avoid being negative as well.
I never said that religion was "good for nothing". I have written extensively about its function. I never attack another person for their spirituality. I only ever express my own thoughts and feelings about spirituality and religion. If another person is offended by my own beliefs than I don't really care. I am always open to debate and discussion, and will defend my stance that most religious institutions are both "archaic" and "dogmatic". This should not be taboo to say. If you think it is wrong, I welcome you to thoughtfully challenge the statement.