Forums → WEPR → Religion and Grammar!

Just for your information, Sense is Serbian, in case you're saying he's a stereotypical American tourist.

Now on facebook?... Why are you even using that site as a reference? To me, I don't really consider it necessary at all to even greatly consider grammar when using facebook. And I see that my Spainish speaking facebook gaming* friends don't either. Since it seems they use slang and, well, google translate can't translate that worth poop! hahaha I don't mind

Facebook is a good place to start, considering most people have it, and that's where people interact mostly online these days.

I think it is randomly, just because they are religions does not in any-way mean that they automatically would or would not utilize good grammar. His friends may not have good grammar, and may be religious, but that does not inherently mean that all or many religious people are the same.
The above statement is pure logic.

Article states that the more educated you get, the less religious you become. Religion doesn't need to be the source of such grammatical errors, but it does hint at a correlation, and should not be dismissed out of hand.

Also people tend to type to facebook and other easy to comment on websites from phones, texting has horrible grammar functions most people don't even bother with. A lot of people don't bother using grammar unless they are making a point, as well. etc etc, basically people use it when they feel they need it. Which, like I sated earlier, can be different for natural speakers.

Of course. But if studies show there is a relative gap between how bad one's grammar does get on the internet whether you're atheist or religious, then if such a gap between ''badness'' exists, there will be a correlation.

Article states that the more educated you get, the less religious you become. Religion doesn't need to be the source of such grammatical errors, but it does hint at a correlation, and should not be dismissed out of hand
...
Of course. But if studies show there is a relative gap between how bad one's grammar does get on the internet whether you're atheist or religious, then if such a gap between ''badness'' exists, there will be a correlation.

? No such studies have been brought forth. Claims are irrelevant. It's all subjective, like what he means by Education and his expectations on that. Who he is talking about, etc.

And I tend to not let studies do the "thinking" for me. For me to consider that 'study' I would have to have every way that 'study' conducted itself and got it's information completely transparent to me before I even considered it.

And it would most likely be biased to boot.

Just for your information, Sense is Serbian, in case you're saying he's a stereotypical American tourist.

I never implied, or meant to, that Sense was a stereotypical American tourist. He is not an American tourist as far as I know.

Why did you think I thought that? American tourists are Americans traveling to other countries you know. And he learned the language before going there. (if did come to America and isn't in Serbia right now)

'badness'? That is your perspective, I don't see it as 'bad' just not grammatically correct. I don't mind it as long as I can read it.



It seems to me that some people in this thread want there to be a correlation between grammar and religion. I guess they come from that perspective.

There is no meaning in even trying to do such a thing.

I had a lot more to say, but most of it slipped away as I was typing lol (in the earlier posts as I was typing them figureing out what to say)

If you are gonna nitpick ima leave, I said my bit.

This is just a meaningless " I want it to be that way, for my ego and self affirmation" thread anyway

? No such studies have been brought forth. Claims are irrelevant. It's all subjective, like what he means by Education and his expectations on that. Who he is talking about, etc.

And I tend to not let studies do the "thinking" for me. For me to consider that 'study' I would have to have every way that 'study' conducted itself and got it's information completely transparent to me before I even considered it.

Studies and surveys.

In that case, you're never going to believe any sources, because no research paper includes everything they actually did. I don't include every single sample, method, flaw that could have affected my results in whatever paper I'm doing. It's too time-consuming, and I do have deadlines by professors.

And it would most likely be biased to boot.

Don't actually see how going hundreds of thousands of questions will be biased.

Why did you think I thought that? American tourists are Americans traveling to other countries you know. And he learned the language before going there. (if did come to America and isn't in Serbia right now)

Because your essay earlier included jabs on stereotypical American tourist, so I just added on that he isn't American, or even a tourist in America. Anything queer with that?

This is just a meaningless " I want it to be that way, for my ego and self affirmation" thread anyway

No it isn't. It's speculation on a study done, and is a healthy discussion, unless you count 314.

it seems that you deem them incompetent.

A decision on how to perceive someone wouldn't be made solely on grammar - although it does contribute. It's not really the flesh of an argument but the way you show it, and almost bares irrelevance as long as you can send your message with clarity.

First of all, why are you judging based off grammar?

It is the entire reason for being for this thread. Makes sense to follow its title - and it's actually quite an interesting subject as it is, I don't see why you shouldn't go into this in a bit more depth

In my book that is folly.

Okay - considering that this is on the premise that I deem someone with worse communication skills 'lower' and I don't do that, don't take offence that I won't reply to everything that follows from that.

From earlier posts, it seems you just randomly associated religion with grammar.

To whom is this directed at?

A natural speaker usually assumes he/she will be understood just by speaking, without worrying, about grammar and wording at all times.

For speaking I think it's the tone and body language that lets them passively (and unknowingly) carry on the message in a strong form without actually needing to send it as much verbally. A natural speaker I take it is one of the native language, or fluent in another? If so, then I can see what you mean and I'd say it's almost always the case for people of their Mother Tongue.

No one can legitimately portray ignorance on that one, if they know English written, then they can understand this post.

Certainly. Your English is far from incomprehensible and honestly seems very well thought out.

Maybe. not the other stuff, far to general to be realistic.

You could be surprised xD there's a lot of things that can create discrepancies that you wouldn't even bother paying attention to -- I find that they actually have a cause in the effect, and not just coincidental as well.

I don't think this point is relevant.

There's a lot of things that could be considered irrelevant -- but the thing is there's no harm in targetting a practice like this because offence need not be taking if you're of the studied faction. Does it mean you ARE likely to be of less intelligence? Hypothetically, if a study provided information that theists were generally of less intelligence that does not mean that every person there is of less intelligence to an atheist. Of course there are exceptions.

I think you are generalizing and making an inaccurate assessment towards a lot of people.

Wide-scale studies are good to say "I'm probably / I might meet someone like X" or "In general, Y is Z". I wouldn't meet someone, learn they're a Christian and then look out for spelling errors or any idiotic claims that they make -- I know a lot of people who are atheist who indeed have terrible spelling of their own native language and have remarkably unsupported ideologies (example, Ghosts).
^ And before one of you would like to snipe that one about ghosts, such as how they're real or just try and say that it actually is supported: The people I am making reference to do not go looking for that kind of information, they base theirs off frivolous experiences and superstitious perceptions from the start.

just because they are religions does not in any-way mean that they automatically would or would not utilize good grammar.

Some ideas on how there could be differences have been put forward. Such as the lower standard of intelligence in general, or general upbringing. This is why I called it an interesting subject, earlier.

The above statement is pure logic.

Yes, and I doubt anyone here practicing good grammar / spelling would initiate a judgement for all theists that they will have poor communication skills based solely on the fact(?) that in general, they have lower standards. This is again, hypothetical.

You could have someone who is logically fallacious trying to adapt the study to create an argument against theists in general, on what is still, I have to say, a pretty impertinent topic as long as the point is made clarion. However, are we going to delve into how people could (badly) abuse this information and how that should disrupt the study; will we disregard the puerile folk who will do that and conduct a debate using sound logic / reason, should the need arise, and just have the information we've obtained at the back for any future reference that calls for it?

I didn't say it can't happen just because I didn't say it could

Good establishment of logic, I found something similar earlier, in particular what nichodemus first brought up:

Read OP's article before accusation.

I'd have to say it's based more on perception and the idea that the OP was trying to randomly find the difference was not asserted;

From earlier posts, it seems you just randomly associated religion with grammar.

I can't say it's random - it seems to be an 'argument' from experience at best, however. Although, later posts from different people actually did try to establish a strong, fair connection between the two.

Facebook is a good place to start, considering most people have it, and that's where people interact mostly online these days.

Well, yes. Although you may still find difficulties finding a correlation in something where typing (and typing speed) is almost a hinderance and people react to it by typing in short form without grammar, unless it's necessary (instead of 'appropriate'.

" I want it to be that way, for my ego and self affirmation" thread anyway

For the OP, maybe, but certainly not certainly (lol).
Other people aren't here to do that, and I don't think nichodemus is either. I can say I'm not here for my ego based on the idea that I don't value being better than others, I value actually being good. I suck at ice skating - I did better than others for my first time (so I'm told), that doesn't really mean I feel better about that, although it does tell me that I was able to get a grip faster (if that's true).

Sorry for smashing my nose in at this point, just thought I'd give my thoughts.

Nice seeing you, Noobclone

- H

Well, yes. Although you may still find difficulties finding a correlation in something where typing (and typing speed) is almost a hinderance and people react to it by typing in short form without grammar, unless it's necessary (instead of 'appropriate'.

Which is why my earlier post was with regards to how ''bad'' atheists and religious peoples' grammar is.

Which is why my earlier post was with regards to how ''bad'' atheists and religious peoples' grammar is.

Just looked and found that. My apologies.

- H