Wurd. After all, he poses with a cat. Really!

If I can be the devil's advocate, 'apparently' may be superfluous here, at least in text to strangers. A. If you, a self-described atheist, are answering a question about the motivations of believers as to why they believe in god, something you cannot know and is clearly not the same for all of them, it is obviously and necessarily true that you are supposing it's one of the reasons. B. Though no one really knows for sure why they believe anything, it is all but certain that safety/comfort is one of the reasons at least some people believe. 'Ostensibly' would be the best of the synonyms for this situation, but again wouldn't really be necessary.
That said, if someone objects to the way you quoted them, because you didn't actually quote them, you should apologize and amend it, not argue why you think it's the same.

@JeffMurray I don’t agree with your analysis. The removal of the word “apparently “ completely changes the meaning of what @Literate-Hiker said, and more importantly, it changes completely what she meant to convey to the reader. When this prefix to her statement is removed it gives the false impression that she is making a definite statement of fact that she knows it makes them feel safe, whereas with the prefixed word “apparently”, it makes very clear that it’s she’s making a statement based purely on her assumptions.

@Marionville I addressed those issues. Please reread my comment.

@JeffMurray I re-read your part B three times and it is non-sensical. Let me make sure I captured it:
-"no one really knows for sure why they believe anything"
-"it is all but certain"

Really, is that what you wanted to say? You are playing word games, and not very well. @literatehiker has schooled you, accept the input, and learn from it.

@Mitch07102 Schooled me? She didn't even respond to me. What the heck are you talking about?

And yes, that's what I meant to say. There are plenty of things you can't know for sure but are almost certain of. You really can't think of anything that meets those criteria? Give it a try.

@JeffMurray In your reply you clearly state that both “apparently” or your preferred choice of synonym “ostensibly “ may be superfluous, or again in your own words “wouldn’t really be necessary”. The author of the piece included the word “apparently” because without it it gives a completely different meaning to her words, it cannot, or “may” not be left out without altering the meaning of her statement. You may say you have addressed this issue, I don’t believe you have.

@LiterateHiker Editors, in general, are in league with the devil. And in the context of a discussion group, is never acceptable. I am like you, I use every word deliberately.

@Marionville The reason I gave was that, at least in text to people who don't know her sense of humor, and given the circumstances, it is necessarily true that she is surmising a reason [some] others may believe. It's like leaving out the words "I think" from the sentence "I think purple is the prettiest color." As a statement of opinion, the words "I think" are either implied or superfluous.
Since she cannot know why any [and certainly not all] people believe in God, it is necessarily true that her statement was one of supposition, and thus, the word "apparently" was unecessary.

@JeffMurray You miss the point. I will move on now and look forward to @literatehiker next post.

@JeffMurray Finis!

@Mitch07102 Talk about missing the point. You're on a website frequented by many people who describe themselves as agnostic atheists, people who can't KNOW god doesn't exist but are all but certain one doesn't. Shit. That's essentially YOU for cryin' out loud. From your own details page:

Do you believe in a god?
No
How certain are you that there are no gods?
99.9%

Really, is that what you wanted to say? Seems I have schooled you; accept the input, and learn from it.

@LiterateHiker yes...precisely.

@Marionville, @Mitch07102

Thank you both.

By deleting the adverb "apparently," the man changed my sentence from "I'm not sure it is true" to "It is true."

@Marionville, @Mitch07102

Appreciate your intelligence, wisdom and support. You are both right.

I feel tired of argumentative men who refuse to listen.

@LiterateHiker I’ve got your back!

@LiterateHiker Maybe everyone missed the larger point I made in my first comment. I'll repeat it: "That said, if someone objects to the way you quoted them, because you didn't actually quote them, you should apologize and amend it, not argue why you think it's the same."

@JeffMurray

1. You are wrong.

2. Your comment doesn't make sense.

3. Your stubborn argumentative behavior is tiresome.

4. This is the last time I will reply to you.

@LiterateHiker

1. Debating is toxic? What do you think everyone here is doing everyday?
2. It makes perfect sense.
3. Don't.

@LiterateHiker

1. Prove it.
2. Yes, it does.
3. Your inability to see reason is tiresome.
4. That's fine.

@JeffMurray MANSPLAINING is not debate, it's behaving like an A$$. Your inability to see your behavior in this manner is tiresome. And you've had plenty of folks pointing it out to you yet you remain completely blind to it which is typical. SMDH

@Larimar

Exactly. Thank you.

@Larimar, @Marionville, @@Mitch07102

I reported and blocked @Jeff Murray today. His replies are gone (at least for me). He sent me a message:

"You are only blocking me because you can't argue your way out of a paper bag."

My reply:

"Three people, including me, reported you. Your insults are against Community Guidelines​. You are an ignorant, argumentative asshole."

Kathleen

@LiterateHiker I can still see them, maybe you can't because you blocked him? I refuse to allow abusive assholes like this to stand unconfronted. It's toxic behavior.

@Larimar

Interesting. I did not realize @JeffMurray's replies are visible to others after I blocked him. I cannot see them.

I reported him for insulting members that is against Community Guidelines. Hope Admin. deletes his replies.

It would help if you report him, too.

@AgeofReason

I disagree. When I wrote a monthly column for the Wenatchee Business Journal, I had a wonderful editor, Mike Cassidy, for eight years.

@LiterateHiker of course you’re correct. I used a stereotype, and my general experiences. Mea culpa.

@LiterateHiker Good for you. He clearly has issues and was becoming more strident.

And is it just my own bias, or is any man who posts his primary photo cuddling a cat a little off-kilter? I mean really........

@Mationville

Well said. Thank you.

@GoodMan, @MrDragon

I believe they deleted his account.

Playing Sherlock Holmes, today I clicked on my comments and searched for his first rant. Both of his posts were deleted.

So, I assume his account was nuked.

@LiterateHiker Fantastic! I hope he was deleted, and that behavior doesn’t return under another username.

@JimG

I agree. Thank you for your reply.

@LiterateHiker You're welcome.

@AgeofReason

Most likely, a member felt offended by your comment and reported it.

Since you are new, check out the Community Guidelines.

1. Hover your mouse over the Learn tab, above.

2. Click on About Us.

3. Page down to Community Guidelines.

@LiterateHiker thanks. That’s a plausible explanation. I thought it was a tame comment—perhaps not.

@Petter, @Cutiebeauty, @BudFrank, @bobwjr, @Mitch07102, @EdEarl, @MizJ, @xenoview

Thanks, everyone. Wondered if I overreacted by reporting him. As a columnist, I care about quoting accurately. Love language.

"What does that word mean?" my daughter Claire asked. "Look it up," I replied and relented. Gave her the definition in simpler words.

"Why didn't you use the easier word?" she asked.

"Because I love the shade of meaning in the original word," I replied. Claire rolled her eyes into the next state.

@LiterateHiker Nuance

@LiterateHiker specific words have shades of meaning and exist for a reason

@BudFrank

Exactly.

@LiterateHiker as a former linguist I understand this.

@Cutiebeauty

Exactly.

@Cutiebeauty

I believe they deleted his account.

Playing Sherlock Holmes, today I clicked on my comments and searched for his first rant. Both of his posts were deleted.

So, I assume his account was nuked.

@LiterateHiker that's wonderful.. It was probably trump.. You know, practicing fake news..

@Cutiebeauty

Love your comment. You made me laugh.

@LiterateHiker I'm glad

@BudFrank

1. He posted a rant against Christianity. People replied.

2. The next day, he posted essentially the same rant. To support his argument, he included snippets of our previous replies edited by him in quotes with our usernames.

@LiterateHiker that is so far out of line! If that was a group I moderated he would be out of it

@Mitch07102

Wish I had blocked him. Can't quite remember his username.

@LiterateHiker He isn't worth remembering. If he shows again, you'll remember.

Blocking wouldn't change his behavior and the edited comments would still be there.

@MizJ

I believe they deleted his account.

Playing Sherlock Holmes, today I clicked on my comments and searched for his first rant. Both of his posts were deleted.

So, I assume his account was nuked.

@LiterateHiker Good, there is enough bullshit in the world, this should be our sanctuary.

@MizJ 100% agree, plus then you wouldn't see them I imagine. (Not really sure, I don't really believe in blocking people. Getting spam/bot/fake accounts banned is a different story.)

@JeffMurray I rarely blockpeople, but have done so. I use it most often on those who, when challenged or called on a lame post, resort to vulgar language, usually with poor grammar. Thankfully rare on this site.

@JeffMurray I think women feel the need to block men more than the other way around, partly because women don't tend to send d&ck pics and unsolicited explicit messages to strangers.

@MizJ That's fair, but in those instances the person should be banned, not blocked, yes? I mean, no one wants to look at dicks so do the other ladies a favor and get disgusting people like that banned.

@MizJ, @JeffMurray

"We welcome debate and dissent but personal attacks, persistent trolling and similar abuse will not be tolerated," is one of the Community Guidelines.

I blocked guys who cruelly, personally attacked me for being a Democrat and a woman.

@LiterateHiker I did nothing of the sort, I simply replied in kind. I didn't even call her a name, I just suggested that some people know the definitions of atheist and agnostic or something like that and some people are [expletives] and that she should guess which one she is, which was the exact kind of thing she said to me. Apparently the word I used was "too evil" to exist on this holy site while I imagine what she said is still up.

@JeffMurray

I believe you.