10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About Atheism

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Human beings think with words. Thought is dependent on the words in our vocabularies. Our communications in an online forum are the sum and substance of our individual styles of expression, thought, conscience, decisions and character. My net impression: Herb14 come across as honest, thoughtful, informed, relaxed in his own skin and at home with any topic.

None of that tells me if he is responsive to the ideas of others in real-time, which is needed for a worthwhile discussion.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
None of that tells me if he is responsive to the ideas of others in real-time, which is needed for a worthwhile discussion.

"Herb14 come across as honest, thoughtful, informed, relaxed in his own skin and at home with any topic." These qualities seem to suggest that "he is responsive to the ideas of others in real-time, which is needed for a worthwhile discussion."

Note: "About Herb Silverman is founder and President Emeritus of the Secular Coalition for America, author of “Candidate Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt,” and Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the College of Charleston." Certainly has the academic credentials and appears to be intellectually honest.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Herb14 come across as honest, thoughtful, informed, relaxed in his own skin and at home with any topic." These qualities seem to suggest that "he is responsive to the ideas of others in real-time, which is needed for a worthwhile discussion."

Note: "About Herb Silverman is founder and President Emeritus of the Secular Coalition for America, a ...[text shortened]... of Charleston." Certainly has the academic credentials and appears to be intellectually honest.

Pfft, he had you with the Distinguinshments and Academic Credentials. You don't actually care whether he's responsive to the ideas of others because you do not care about responsiveness to ideas in general.

To you, it's only the credentials that matter.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Pfft, he had you with the Distinguinshments and Academic Credentials. You don't actually care whether he's responsive to the ideas of others because you do not care about responsiveness to ideas in general.

To you, it's only the credentials that matter.

Hardly. Character qualities were suggested: you rejected them. Academic credentials were suggested: you rejected them. Please spell out the actual criteria you view yourself as measuring up to and would like to see in others. Thanks.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Hardly. Character qualities were suggested: you rejected them. Academic credentials were suggested: you rejected them. Please spell out the actual criteria you view yourself as measuring up to and would like to see in others. Thanks.

Oh, look, now it's suddenly about me. Where'd Herb go? 😵

The criteria for being good at debate is simple: an example or two of holding one's own in a debate.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Oh, look, now it's suddenly about me. Where'd Herb go? 😵

The criteria for being good at debate is simple: an example or two of holding one's own in a debate.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
SG, do you think Red Hot Pawn's new member, Herb14, would focus on topics objectively and pose thoughtful questions in search of answers in sync with truth or would the Noobie rant with a rehearsed agenda of questions he was dying to refute?

SG, why does a simple question concerning a fictional site member's probable behaviour on this forum elicit such evasive personal reaction from you? Are you that insecure? Is peer approval the online food you live for since your recantation? If so, please accept my apology for pursuing a definitive reply. If not, is "being good at debate" the only acid criteria?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your post was confusing, I think I had good reason to be confused.

I also think you are wildly off the mark with regards to comments on his threads.

Think what you will.
Proof is in the pudding.
If I am in err, kindly point to your support for the assertion.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think a copy pasted text that is text from people who are theists talking straw manly about what they claim atheists think is exactly the same as a text by atheists talking about what atheists think, is offered in 'good faith' debating terms? It seems unlikely to me.

Why don't you try another run at that and see if you can come up with a cogent question which relates to the topic at hand.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Why don't you try another run at that and see if you can come up with a cogent question which relates to the topic at hand.

I'll take that as a dodge. 😀

Originally posted by FMF
I'll take that as a dodge. 😀

I'll take that as an inability to understand the topic with a predilection for avoidance.😲

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'll take that as an inability to understand the topic with a predilection for avoidance.😲

Avoidance? The question I asked [on the previous page] was completely on-topic. Somehow, I think you're just not going to answer it. 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
Avoidance? The question I asked [on the previous page] was completely on-topic. Somehow, I think you're just not going to answer it. 🙂

It is not I who avoids, but you.
I pointed out an obviously true observation, one which is easily verified using the slightest of effort.
Namely, when GB cuts and pastes articles in support of his position, he is denounced for the activity of cutting and pasting--- all the more egregious because he (allegedly) isn't contributing any analysis of his own.
Here, however, he follows his exact same MO of cutting and pasting, with the only difference being the content.
Miracle of miracles, instead of denouncing the effort, someone actually admits to not only reading the content but shows they considered it enough to agree with the content.

What you have added is superfluous and distracting to that point, which demonstrates your decision to avoid addressing the topic at hand.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It is not I who avoids, but you.
I pointed out an obviously true observation, one which is easily verified using the slightest of effort.
Namely, when GB cuts and pastes articles in support of his position, he is denounced for the activity of cutting and pasting--- all the more egregious because he (allegedly) isn't contributing any analysis of his own. ...[text shortened]... stracting to that point, which demonstrates your decision to avoid addressing the topic at hand.

I think Grampy Bobby's long copy pastes and then his characteristic refusal to discuss them properly is ineffective, and I have mentioned it to him several times, as have others. His Modus Operandi more often than not is to post clumsy 'confirmation bias' material that is written by theists who claim atheists actually believe in God, or fear God, or hate God, blah blah etc. etc. and a whole host of other silly self-boosting straw men superimpositions, and this 'trolling' element of his Modus Operandi has been pointed out to him. While I am nonplussed by yet another copy paste OP from him, on this occasion he seems to have dropped the 'trolling' element'. I suppose it's welcome in a way. But I am not yet convinced that Grampy Bobby's professed interest in 'understanding atheists' is sincere.

Originally posted by FMF
I think Grampy Bobby's long copy pastes and then his characteristic refusal to discuss them properly is ineffective, and I have mentioned it to him several times, as have others. His Modus Operandi more often than not is to post clumsy 'confirmation bias' material that is written by theists who claim atheists actually believe in God, or fear God, or hate God, bl ...[text shortened]... not yet convinced that Grampy Bobby's professed interest in 'understanding atheists' is sincere.

I, too, noticed the price of tea in China today.
Hard to believe simple leaves, spice and paper can yield such demand.

But let's get back to the subject at hand, shall we?

The only point that is making this thread partially interesting is the disingenuous dissenting postings of those opposed to GB when his c-p is of a certain leaning.
When the wind shifts their way, no mention is made of the format; instead, discussion goes to the topic cut and pasted.

As I said earlier: interesting...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I, too, noticed the price of tea in China today.

Are you seriously saying you don't see the relevance of my comments thus far? If you are feigning it, I can't quite see what you think you will achieve.