Why Not Debate the Truth?

deism godI just came across a long-running debate on “Is there enough evidence to support a deistic god” between a self-professed atheist and someone who describes themselves as a fundamentalist, Biblical-inerrantist Christian.  I’ve seen plenty of these kinds of debates go on, even the big-name Christian apologists will often debate for a deistic god instead of the God they actually claim to believe in, but I always ask myself, what is the sense of debating for a deity that you don’t actually worship?  Is it because the God you actually profess is absurd and cannot be defended rationally so you might as well set your sights lower and go for a generic deity that might be a little simpler to argue for?

Personally, I’d never enter into a debate like that.  I’m not interested in my debate opponent picking a topic at random, I want them to defend what they actually believe and prove that their faith is actually logically and objectively valid.  You can be sure that at the end, assuming they’ve demonstrated their point, and even if they haven’t, they’ll try to twist things to say that their God is actually real.

Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.  It makes no more sense than claiming that demonstrating Vishnu is real somehow also proves the Christian God is real as well.  The deistic god and a theistic god are not only two entirely different things, they are entirely antithetical to each other.  Proving that a deistic deity is real also has the effect of proving that no theistic deities can possibly exist.  Therefore, our religious friend above is continually shooting himself in the foot with each and every post he writes because he’s attempting to show that the God he worships cannot possibly be real!

I’m sure he hasn’t realized that.

This is really why I refuse to engage in debates over theoretical things, just for the fun of it.  When the individual has no real horse in the race, when they’re not personally engaged with the outcome, what’s the point?  Besides, it’s a no-lose proposition for the theist.  If they win the debate, they can pull the bait-and-switch between the god they argued for and their god and if they lose, well, it proves nothing about the god they worship at all, does it?

It’s not just the amateur atheists who get taken in by this, big-name Christian apologists do this all the time too. I’ve seen people like William Lane Craig push points that simply do not apply to the God he believes in, mostly because I think he feels the need to make a point when he’s losing.

For atheists who are debating, insist that your opponent only support and defend the gods they actually believe in. This isn’t an academic endeavor, it’s debating position against position, belief against belief.  The best belief, or lack of belief, ought to win and if they have no personal stock in the outcome, why bother running the race to begin with?

291 thoughts on “Why Not Debate the Truth?”

  1. Debate religion with a rational person is fun IMO. It's the crazy ones that don't need debated. The ones who claim to have evidence but can't produce any.

    1. Yes, but our definition of 'crazy' and 'rational' are totally different.

      And I find it interesting Cephus speaks about this. Intelligent design is the God I serve and so far he hasn't been 'debating' much about it. Saying there is no evidence, and then saying that the evidence isn't pointing to an intelligent designer? Yes. But debating his position? Nope.

      1. It sure is. I use the English definition. Not sure which one you use.





        adjective: crazy; comparative adjective: crazier; superlative adjective: craziest


        mentally deranged, especially as manifested in a wild or aggressive way.




        adjective: rational


        based on or in accordance with reason or logic

        1. While you deliberately try to damage my reputation, I notice you didn't give any examples showing any basis.

          I can.

          24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
          "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO"

          The person who uses an unsubstantiated rumor to advocate for the violent death of people never tried or convicted of anything…?

          That is the kind of person you just described in my opinion.

          1. You try and damage my reputation all the time. IMO But yes I have plenty of examples that show you are crazy IMO:
            Roger 170p • 9 hours ago

            Well, she might have shown hair and neck.
            In all fairness should a slut like that be allowed to live?
            Roger 168p • 49 minutes ago
            Attacking you for just about anything is the only decent thing to do.

            Roger 162p • 4 days ago
            My chuckle is that Iran is going to slip one through our admittedly very porous southern border and then detonate this in a US city…

            14 hours ago @ Conservative Victory News – Open Thread – April 18… • 0 replies • +2 points

            It's like poking a dying snake. It's almost fun to watch them get angry.

            Roger torturing animals is a clear sign of mental problems

          2. If my quoting your texts damages your reputation, don't you think you need to examine what you say?

            And your comment proves my comments accurate, even if you took them out of context and in partial quotes.

            When I attack (verbally) your lies and distortions of my values and opinions why is that a bad thing? Hmmm? It may be inconvenient for you but when you take positions like this it begs to be (verbally) attacked.

            24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
            "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO"

            When I quoted you discussing the southern border, that was not and has never been my position. I don't blame you for pulling it quickly when you realized how much of your agenda you revealed.

          3. You made that comment about the border. Your writing style, plus I have the screen shot.

            You calling me Muslim friendly, a troll, saying I am always looking for the most violent solution possible damages my reputation and causes emotional distress because it is unwanted attention and you have been asked over and over again to stop

          4. I repeated that comment, I quoted it and you were the one that made it originally, even if you deleted it since then.

            And your values tend to be sharia compliant.
            Can you show where my labeling your comment for what it is is actually wrong?

            24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
            The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO

          5. No, you made that comment.

            My comment had nothing to do with sharia so now you are damaging my reputation

          6. No, I quoted that comment, you posted it originally then pulled it when I called you on it.

            Your comment seemingly supported a sharia compliant movement.

            Of course if you want to repudiate that comment you can do so.

          7. Nope, that is a lie. I never made that comment or would ever use a word like "chuckle"

            that's a roger word

          8. Nope you lie. I would never say that. I stand by what I do say and admit when I say things. This I never said you did

          9. You did say that, and I'm not lying.
            If you disagree with the comment, why won't you explain it isn't how you feel and renounce the content of the comment?

          10. Yes, you did, and you pulled it before I could save the permalink.

            I never said it, and I don't hold the positions in that comment.
            Can you say the same? I notice you don't.

          11. There are two problems with that statement.

            I wasn't the one that said it, it's not my position and I don't ever support anything in it.

            When I quoted you, and since then you have not said the same about the quote. You do what you just did, you dance around it and very carefully never say it's not your position.

          12. This is a lie:
            Roger 173p · 23 hours ago

            There are two problems with that statement.

            I wasn't the one that said it, it's not my position and I don't ever support anything in it.

            When I quoted you, and since then you have not said the same about the quote. You do what you just did, you dance around it and very carefully never say it's not your position"

          13. The comment you quoted doesn't prove your point.

            I state what I do for reasons, one of which is I don't want people to misquote or try saying what my positions are contrary to my actual views.

          14. You wanted to blow up southern cities and "chuckle" about it. Then you lie and claim I made that comment. Fuck you. you lying POS

          15. I quoted your comment, and you haven't denounced the content of that comment.

            Just because you pulled it before I had the permalink doesn't mean you didn't post it.

          16. I would never say a comment like that, you would though and I have the screen shot to prove it

          17. You did, but if you won't admit it then why not take this opportunity to explain and confirm that the comment doesn't reflect your position?

            And having a screen shot of my quoting you doesn't prove anything other than I quoted you.

          18. It is a screen shot of the original comment that you made.

            I have already said it DOES NOT reflect my position. I would never make a comment like that.

            YOu on the other hand have no problem making comments like that

          19. Finally, after all this time you finally say it's not your position.

            Wow, why was that such a struggle?

            And just because I quote you doesn't mean it reflects my personal positions that have never advocated violence outside of self defense.

          20. It has never been my position and I never claimed it was. Just because it is your postion does not mean it is mine

          21. Roger replied to your comment on Crunch Time for the Candidates – Left, Right & Center on KCRW / Left, Right & Center – KCRW:

            But it's the Jews that murder the children.

            111 weeks ago @ Breitbart.com – Ala. grandmother shoot… • 0 replies • +3 points

            If you're going to have to clean your gun, fire more bullets.

            Keep it aimed at center of mass and just keep pulling the trigger as the slime bag falls to the floor, stand over him if necessary and keep pulling the trigger until you hear a click.
            Roger 166p • 12 minutes ago
            I love the smell of fresh napalm in the morning….
            7 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Romney wins Iowa in fi… • 1 reply • 0 points
            Almost as pretty as a burning church

            Shall I continue?

          22. Self defense is not a vice.
            Why would you say an entire town of Christians deserve this:

            24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
            "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO "

            Yet you smear my calls for self defense?
            And what was prettier, your call to burn the church or the thought of the Christians dying? You have never answered that one.

          23. Ah, that's the same mistake you make every time.
            Sharia complaint courts would do this, western justice systems would have an open and fair trial before calling for the death penalty.

            And you have nothing to support this story, NOTHING. But other people have explained it was in India and islamists did this to hindu people.

            And that continued abuse is widely documented. http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link….

          24. Yeah I have a good friend who posted it, you read it and he has never lied to me. SO I believe him and if he did lie then my comment means nothing. It did happen in India but that is a separate story

          25. And it is still just an unsubstantiated rumor and you went for the most violent solution to the scenario.

            And you haven't shown it's a separate story. Neither has the person who conveniently told the rumor so you could attack Christians in your response.

          26. That's not what you said yesterday.

            Changing your story to cover for your tendencies to call for the most violent solution to almost every situation?

          27. Life is hard, especially when someone talks like this:

            3 hours ago @ Godfather Politics – NY and Boston Mayors P… · 0 replies · 0 points
            "You need to mow your grass more often. The light blue metal building caddi-cornered from house is what comapny?
            You know the one with a brick and glass store front."

            I on the other hand don't make those kinds of comments and stick to issues as far as possible.

            See the subtle difference?

          28. And I would not have said that but you said this first:
            Roger 160p • 1 hour ago
            And I wouldn't stalk you if you weren't such a hack.

            I was responding in kind

          29. My debating your flawed positions on a form designed for it is stalking according to your definitions?

            Interesting, both in that I don't agree and that you re-define words at your own convenience.

            Then you redefine it again so that the comment about my yard isn't actual stalking.

            You respond according to your own agenda and regardless of any legal standards of conduct, IMO.

          30. You have not shown they are flawed and everyone on here has explained why you are flawed. Your inability to produce any objective evidence for the claims you have made is why you are flawed. Then you demand we produce evidence for claims we have not made.

          31. I have, with just this one comment.

            24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
            "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO"

            It was based on a rumor that you have never substantiated.

          32. and if it is not true the comment I made means nothing.

            However you have never shown it to be not true and I would believe a friend of mine over you a known liar anyday

        1. If it's such a straw man, why not prove that evolution has worked we only have the fittest surviving, and that after millions of years all the diversity has been weeded out.

          1. I am not sure what you are attempting to say here, but it appears to me that (1) you have an incorrect understanding of the what the term "fittest" means in regards to evolution and (2) are confused about the concept of biological diversity.

            The amount of evidence that evolution has occurred is astonishingly large. You would know this if you would (1) remove your theological blinders and (2) actually read even a fraction of the published work on the subject.

          2. I'm sure what I said and it appears to me that I have a correct understanding, it simply doesn't match what we see in the world around us, if millions of years of selective survival occurred.

            I'm not the one confused on the terms, we have that diversity and if the theory of evolution was correct we wouldn't. The amount of evidence you actually listed for discussion isn't that large. The assumptions and things you think should be commonly accepted is.

            I don't care who'd published. I care about what I see and what can be proven.
            I have had many taunts thrown at me that I didn't understand proof and evidence and I see that what is used for your arguments is even more flimsy than what I offer.

  2. You do not have an accurate understanding of evolution. The diversity of species on this planet is explained by evolutionary theory. Just the opposite of what you said would be true if evolution by natural selection were not at work. There would be less biological diversity.

    You have offered no evidence. It is obvious you have not read the scientific evidence where it concerns evolution. Your entire argument here is based on argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity, both logical fallacies.

    You are in fact confused on the terms.

    Finally, it is obvious that you have intentionally chosen not to educate yourself because the evidence supporting evolution is in fact enormously large in quantity and quality. Refusing to actually examine this evidence does not make the evidence vanish. It's there. I know it is there because I have read a large percentage of this published scientific work that contains the evidence for evolution.

    The fact that you state that it is irrelevant what evidence has been published demonstrates your ignorance on the subject. You think that you are more of an expert than the world's biologists and other scientists who have contributed to our understanding of evolution and the biological diversity it has produced. You think your mind and your intellectual capabilities are so superior that you are more qualified to determine what is true and accurate than those who are trained to investigate these matters. Your hubris and sense of self-importance are astonishing in their magnitude, cosmic in their scale. You appear to have a great delusion of grandeur in your assessment of your intellectual abilities.

    1. Roger is an idiot, what do you want? It's been explained to him time and time again where his failures come and he ignores it and just repeats the same old crap over again.

      1. And when I come here time and again you tell me you don't need to explain or prove things it's 'established science'.

        Perhaps I need to just explain my positions are established instead of explaining them.

          1. You're entitled to your own opinions.

            But it appears I'm the one person here explaining, linking to sources and defending my positions outside of simply stating them and reverting to insults, like name calling as you just did.

          2. Well that's a lie:
            31 minutes ago @ Bitch Spot – Horror Show Wednesday:… · 3 replies · -1 points

            'If she is cranky and suffering from possible mood swings, that's a general indicator of a visit by aunt flo, or hot flashes.

            Therefore if she acts that way she opens it up to comments about her state of mind."

            That is insulting. You have not explained a fucking thing only made baseless claims with no objective evidenced to back them up, then demand proof from others who have no claims and have explained why your positions are FLAWED

          3. And how does that show anything I just said is a lie exactly?

            What I was responding to was insulting, and I replied in kind.

          4. Again you lie and you do insult and make sexist comments as I just proved:

            Roger 173p · 8 minutes ago

            You're entitled to your own opinions.

            But it appears I'm the one person here explaining, linking to sources and defending my positions outside of simply stating them and reverting to insults, like name calling as you just did"

            All you do is insult

          5. And it was responding in kind to her insults as I claimed.

            You only proved that I returned an insult not that I did it based on her sex, instead of her bad manners and unreasonable demeanor.

            All you just did was insult, you proved my point again.

          6. There are certain lines you don't cross and you crossed them by making sexist comments.

            You're right I do insult you. You have stalked and harassed me for over 4 years.

          7. I wish you just didn't comment.
            At least not until you mature enough to discuss things like other people who happen to be real adults.

          8. Yes, if you could comment here.

            All the protests and all the insults and you still come back, like a stubborn yeast infection.

            That does explain why the flies buzz around you constantly.

          9. Thanks for the head's up on screen shots and permalinks. Looks like 'someone' has some 'splaining to do about who gets to make foul, insulting comments and who doesn't.

          10. Yes, you as an ill mannered shrew pretend you can say anything, but of course since you seem to have a strong dislike for men with mustaches you don't think they can return any insults.

            Good luck with that.

          11. Well you crossed the lines when you made sexist comments.

            Sorry Cephus but I have to say this.

            You think it is ok to sue people and claiming emotional distress for $20,000.00 yet you think you can make sexist comments and it's no big deal. How in the hell does your warped fucked up little narrow minded mind even think that is ok. Why do you think you can harass, stalk, make sexist comments and then sue people for insulting you?

            You are one fucked up motherfucker

          12. Pay attention, treating someone different based on sex is racist.

            She made her sex part of the discussion, not me. I don't care what kind of old worn out sagging body she might or might not have.

            She did.

          13. "Pay attention, treating someone different based on sex is racist."

            Huh? You know sex is not a race, right? When you brought up her genitalia, that made your comment sexist.

          14. Are you at least admitting I'm not racist.

            We're making progress.
            What is racism? Treating them differently due to skin color.

            That's why I won't treat someone who insisted on dragging her sex into the discussion the same as I would have anyone else making those insults.

          15. Have I accused you of being racist? If so, quote me. I was merely trying to educate you so you don't continue to look foolish. Gender is not a race and your stated definition of "racist" is wrong. Furthermore, if I were to tell you I am a black man and you then started talking demeaning me because of my skin color, then you would be a racist. She may have brought up her gender, but that doesn't excuse your use of sexism.

          16. You tried to apply a new and different definition for sexism, I in a very direct manner connected the two words and their definitions to you remind you that the language doesn't change to suit your smears and verbal attacks.

            I treated her as I would have any other troll that went on the offense as she did. If she didn't want her gender part of the debate she didn't need to tell me what it was.

          17. "…. treating someone different based on sex is racist." Pretty sure that's you changing the meaning of terms. Racism is not sexism. Fail.

          18. "….treating someone different based on sex is racist."

            But you can redefine "racist" as having something to do with gender. Got it.

          19. Try reading the comment up the thread 4 comments. If you read the comments you are pretending to reply to, it might make it easier to make sense. Too bad that's not your goal.

          20. Okay, will do.

            "…. treating someone different based on sex is racist."

            It's still not accurate.

          21. Too bad you two aren't actually responding to the comment your'e replying to.

            But then why would I expect different? You're apparently not up to that.

          22. It is fun to watch him squirm. It's just too bad for him that his comment is still there for everyone to see.

          23. It's not so much fun watching you both troll and misrepresent while you pretend not to read what I post.

            Does it bother you that she dragged her gender into the mix?

          24. sex·ism



            noun: sexism

            prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

            That is what you did

          25. No you did not. You made discriminating comments to her based on her gender. It was downright disgusting

          26. Her comments were ill mannered and unreasonable and if she didn't want to get in the gutter she didn't need to go there.

          27. rac·ism



            noun: racism

            the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

            prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior

            So you did try changing the meaning of the word

          28. I was correct in that both judge a person on a criteria they were born with and not their character.

            You appear to be unwilling to actually read the comment before replying to it.

          29. Roger 173p · 2 hours ago

            Pay attention, treating someone different based on sex is racist.

            That comment is wrong. Sexism and racism are not the same thing

          30. That is only part of what I said.

            You really should read what is there before replying to it.

            And once more you haven't shown I was wrong, both are for something a person is born with and not their character.

          31. I was not wrong, I was returning insult for insult to a person who insisted to bring her gender into the debate.

            If you have a problem with that, take it up with her.

          32. I am not wrong and you both are just beating a dead horse, and no, I don't care what gender that dead horse is unless that dead horse makes an issue out of it.

          33. "I don't want to discuss sex with you, this isn't one of those sites."

            Obviously you do want to, but no thanks. I'm not interested.

          34. Don't blame me I used a commonly used metaphor about beatind a dead horse.

            You really are in need of something, and it's not going to be me.

          35. And you don't show that both issues aren't wrong as a basis for reacting to someone, since character should be the issue.

            What are you thinking?

          36. The next logical step would be to assume you are either a moron or you are just too stubborn to admit you redefined "racist".

          37. For a troll perhaps. Thinking people would not necessarily agree.

            Why take one comment, why not just take one word, like your fellow troll alinsky does?

            There has been much more to my defining words than that one sentence.

          38. Trust,
            Give it up.
            You can't educate him, anymore than one can polish a turd, or pick one up by the clean end.

            Based on Roger's logic, gender is race, and race is gender.

          39. I have given up educating him, now I just like to watch him try to squirm around his own words.

          40. You just can't stand being the most stupid and the most regressive person in the thread, is that why the other trolls came in to help you?

          41. Why aren't you the cutest thing wearing a helmet on the short bus today!

            And yes, that still leaves you as the most arrogant person with the least inclination to discuss issues on the thread.

          42. Want to discuss the definition of "racist"? Here's a hint, it has nothing to do with gender.

            Why do you find me (a man) to be cute? I'm not interested.

          43. Want to discuss how both are judging people on something other than character?

            And if she wanted to drag her sex into the debate why are you complaining to me instead of her?

          44. If she brought her gender into the debate, why did you change the conversation to racism?

            "Pay attention, treating someone different based on sex is racist."

          45. Now you are calling men cute and making sexist comment to women……………how telling

          46. You mean like this?

            · 20 minutes ago

            Why aren't you the cutest thing wearing a helmet on the short bus today!

            And yes, that still leaves you as the most arrogant person with the least inclination to discuss issues on the thread.

          47. Well based on your comments, attitude, downright unwillingness to admit when you are wrong, harassing and stalking issues I will have to disagree that you are educated anywhere beyond a GED.

          48. Based on your comments and your unwillingness to admit anything other than your first set of talking points on the issue, regardless of why you're wrong, I can't imagine you would understand what the words mean.

          49. So do I.
            And is race something a person is born with?

            Is gender something a person is born with?

            Is judging a person on either one a good thing?

            See, did that help?

            I didn't rip on her due to gender, merely used a part of the discussion she insisted be part of it.

            There, all fixed.

            With that many big words you're both going to stay confused no doubt.

          50. So you admit that you realize I didn't say they were I am considering accepting your apology. But it's not a done deal.

          51. The thread has comments that explain why I said what I did and how I used it when you kept ignoring my comments on insults given to a person who insisted on bringing gender into the discussion wasn't sexist, her expecting to be treated differently due to her gender was sexist.

            But hey, don't let facts get into the way of your talking points.

            You trolls wouldn't want to risk that, would you?

          52. I didn't rip on her due to gender, merely used a part of the discussion she insisted be part of it.

            Uh, yes you most positively did. You totally ripped on her for her gender. You made sexist comments telling her to go take another midol, asking if her boobs sagged down to her navel. Sexist comments.

          53. Or as I explain judging someone on something they were born with isn't the same as judging their character.

            You still can't get past the stupid, can you?

          54. It's racist? Are you fucking kidding me?

            You are without a doubt the dumbest person I have ever encountered

          55. It sure did. You made a stupid comment.

            Roger 173p · 2 hours ago

            Pay attention, treating someone different based on sex is racist.


          56. Dumb is the person who ignores and pretends I didn't explain that comment, that both are something a person is born with and not character.

            Had i explained that trust was using the word wrong again, as I had done many many times with both of you it would have been ignored again. That time with a slight twist I was able to show why you are both wrong.

            Ill mannered insults after she made a point of making sure I knew her gender showed she wanted it to be considered part of the debate.

            If she didn't want to go there, it never would have come up.

          57. "Had i explained that trust was using the word wrong again, as I had done many many times with both of you it would have been ignored again."

            We've never discussed either racism nor sexism before today. If we have, please quote me. Yet another Roger lie.

          58. Roger 173p · 2 hours ago

            Pay attention, treating someone different based on sex is racist.

            That is wrong

          59. It was part of the debate, not the entire thing.

            To present it that way is wrong.

            Now, are you still so troll that you can't actually discuss what my point was? Or is that above your pay grade?

          60. Your point seemed to be that "treating someone different based on sex is racist." It's just that you are wrong and there is no context that could make that statement right.

          61. It's just that you didn't like my way of pointing something out.

            And if you read the thread before replying to it, in a meaningful way your comment should be different, but of course it's not the discussion that brings you here. It's the agenda.

          62. The whole thread is you trying to squirm your way out of your inaccurate statement. The problem is, it's still just wrong.

          63. I think we are debating. We are debating your claim that racism is based on how we treat people of other genders which of course is wrong.

          64. Read the thread, that wasn't my argument, it's just one sentence to counter your ignoring my comment that treating someone different due to gender is sexism, not treating her like any other person who might insult me the way she did. She brought gender into the mix, not me.

          65. Wee.
            I'm telling ya, I have seen some things in life, but Uncly Pervy has got to be the single dumbest human being on the face of the earth. I'm surprised that he remembers to breathe on his own………..

          66. Wee,
            I agree with you.

            It would be interesting, to peer inside Rog's fucked up little amoeba brain.

            Roger is Muy Malo when picking on a woman.

          67. Wee, you're Rogerdamned right they were disgusting.

            My new word.

            Figure it out?
            If there is no God, yet Roger thinks he is God.


          68. You are only worth insults. I will continue to insult you as you do me and reply in kind.

            And as I have said in the past I don't want to discuss anything with you I want you to leave me alone. So if you continue to harass me I will continue to insult you

          69. I discuss issues with several people. Cephus, Mr. Liberty, Mr. Lincoln, Alinsky, Trust,Poof, Winchester, etc….

            You harass all those comments. Not one of those people want to discuss a damn thing with you, yet you continue to troll our discussion on issues and then wonder why you get insulted. You have attacked me personally and threatened to attack me physically. You made this whole thing personal so stick it up your ass.

            Maybe you should discuss issues with people that want to discuss things with you. Instead of trolling all our discussions. None of us want to talk to you or have you troll us

          70. You just can't quit digging can you.

            I don't attack anyone. Violence outside of self defense is not something I have ever advocated.

            I do not threaten you personally. Again, violence outside of self defense is not something I have ever advocated.

            If you want to keep up comments of this nature don't think I will turn a blind eye to it.

          71. Wee, I see you and Cephus talking to a third party, at a thread that is two years, about Word Press.

            When suddenly………….BANG!

            Right in the middle of your conversation, here comes Roger, injecting himself into the middle of it.

            I have looked for the best analogy I could find to describe him.

            For a long time, I compared him to a "little boy farting in church."

            Now I am finally convinced that he is "the grain of sand in the KY Jelly…………"

          72. Good god Rog — are you still obsessing about me and keeping the thread off-topic? LOVED your definition of "racist" though, glad to see trustfunded school you, twit. If I were the ill-mannered menopausal terror you claim, I'd call you an effing dufus.

          73. Still the menopausal case today?

            Loved the way you keep dropping out of site for a couple of days. And even if you insist on dragging your failing femininity into this, I'm not 'effing' anything where you're involved.

            I realize you all want to turn intense debate into some sort of sex discussion, but that's not why I'm here.

          74. I love the way she can drop away for days at a time, too.

            I'll bet you don't have the testicular fortitude to drop away for a week.

          75. There's no point in coming back to this site very often. Rog doesn't debate anything, he just rambles on and on about how everyone trolls him, but worse, he lies like a rug. He's lied trying to weasel his way out of saying that everyone misunderstood him when he said, "Pay attention, treating someone different based on sex is racist." And he lied for a week and never admitted he was DEAD WRONG about the Isla Vista shooter's father. He libeled the man and won't admit it just to try to make himself appear relevant. I honestly don't know how you people stand him — I notice any time I make a comment to just about anyone, he's on it like the moth he is. If he weren't so pathetic, it would be sad.

          76. Well if we leave he will just stalk us all to another site. Look at the mess he caused here.

          77. Look at the talking points and hate you tried to smear here and I was able to counter.

            See how that works? When you as a posse of trolls go around attacking my values and religion I see no reason not to use the features of the system to explain why I don't agree with you.

          78. I attacked your stupidity. If that's what you consider to be a value, I cannot help you.

          79. The rest of your comments are just weak attempts to squirm out of your inaccurate definition of "racist". It's just wrong.

          80. Not my opinion, it's my observation and the only rational conclusion given your own words on the subject.

          81. But they both are something you are born with and not something that should be how you judge people.

            It should be character.

          82. You countered nothing and that has been explained to hundreds of times by several people

          83. Sure I have, but as you sit there at your terminal for you have your agenda so your opinions have to push for a preset position and talking points.

          84. Just the ones that you have cherry picked and overlook the entirety of the comments and positions I have laid out.

            How 'troll' of you.

          85. Why are you here? Aren't there plenty of sites that understand you are old, bitter and just not as pleasant to see in the mirror any more?

  3. Fair warning, I am now deleting comments that are little more than personal attacks and insults, I have deleted a handful, all from one user, and if this trend continues, people will be taking a vacation from this blog. This is your only warning. Knock it off.

    1. Cephus,

      I reckon I was prophetic a couple of months ago, when I predicted you would quickly tire of this nonsense. I'll give you credit, you held out longer than I thought you would.

          1. No I came to a site with like minded people and to get away from you. I have went to numerous sites to get away from you. You continue to stalk me from site to site. If you don't like the truth I spread about your cult don't read it

          2. And you got here and immediately started lying about my religion and values.

            If you don't like that, then be more factual about what you say when you misrepresent my values and religion.

            It must be hard being on a forum set up for back and forth when you want to just lecture unchallenged.

          3. You have never explained anything or provided objective evidence for your baseless claims

          4. Sure I have.
            And not one time have you shown a single teaching of Christ that has led to these abuses.

            But that would crimp your talking points.

          5. I can't show how christ taught you to abuse me by harassment either but you claim to be a christian

          6. Since you don't credit the Bible as being what I do, why should I spend time and effort using it to convince you of anything?

          7. I am just showing your position is flawed and that you are a hypocrite

            Good Bye,
            Feel free to have the final word. You did say that was the "sharia friendly way" once

          8. Nope. But if he wants to say this:

            4 minutes ago @ Atheist Revolution – Child Abuse: Are Athei… · 0 replies · +1 points
            "I don't think so. The abuses by the church against children have been going on since the church started. They love molesting children so they have covered it up for centuries. I think the problem goes so much deeper than we will ever know since the perverts cover it up"

            Then he needs to be able to say what teaching of Christ has led to the abuses he blames on being a Christian.

          9. Roger, this Jesus god of yours is the reason why your fellow worshippers molest young boys to begin with read Mark 14:51 KJV ,and ask yourself; what was Jesus doing walking with a young naked boy when the cops came to arrest him? Christians are a perverted doomsday cult of child molesters. No wonder you claim this faith as your own.

          10. SBJ, I realize you miss being at Ray's site and his being a sitting duck for your lies.

            Jesus is the reason Christians reject this abuse and refuse to fund it.

            Jesus wasn't with a naked boy, he was arrested and one of his followers fled naked after a non believer grabbed the outer cloak.

            So, it was an unbeliever that wanted the boy naked, I wonder if it was a secular school teacher? There is no way of knowing.

            Why are so many atheists so unwilling to face the facts about Christianity. They aren't perfect but have long term reasons to try harder.

            If you want to be a hate filled bigot why not follow wee over to that other atheist site?

          11. Your lying for Christ! Either that, or your reading skills really suck? I think it is a combo. The Bible says his garments were cast about his body, and when the cops laid hands on him he dropped them, and ran away naked. To drop something means they were in his hands. IT DOSE NOT SAY THEY WERE RIPPED OFF BY THE COPS idiot!

          12. So, you're lying and you just admitted I was being accurate.

            Do you realize I don't need to discredit you, you do so yourself.

        1. I actually like this site and could probably encourage others to comment here, but it's impossible to have actual debate or even discussion. Someone asked me a while ago on here, "Are you here?", I responded, "I am now, you?" and within 5 minutes I get hit with this: "Too bad, I was hoping the adults would have a chance this evening" from the always-stalking lurker. He spent half his day (if not more) discussing me and insisting that he wasn't being a misogynist, chauvinistic pig with his insults. I avoided the site for 4 hours, he spent most of that time discussing me…I wasn't even there/here/whatever. He reminds me of when my kids were toddlers and I'd go into the bathroom and close the door. Within 30 seconds I'd see their little fingers under the door, they just couldn't stand an adult doing something without them being in the middle of it. Sorry, thanks for letting me vent — I just wish he'd leave people alone who've specifically asked him to leave them alone.

          1. You like this site because you thought you could come here and troll the place.

            You came here insulting me and I threw it right back at you.
            You remind me of a bitter ex wife that hates the world. I wish you'd just take the posse of trolls and focus on their bad manners, and your own.

        2. Well Cephus, I'm sorry to hear you say that.
          Since you are the owner of this website, I'll respect your wishes.

          I thoroughly have enjoyed your website the past few months.

          Enjoy yourself with Roger.
          I have better things to do with my time, than to wade through the hundreds and hundreds of his inane posts, all for the sole purpose of putting one more notch on his Intense Debate tallyboard.

          What is the point?

          I won't be back.

          1. You have a lot to learn and your naivety disappoints me. The nice thing is, if you kick us off, Roger won't be back either. It's a win/win for you either way. Adios.

          2. You want to debate? Explain your comment.

            "Pay attention, treating someone different based on sex is racist."

          3. Nobody is kicking you off, you are choosing to leave because I'm no longer going to allow you to post attacks and insults on another user. If you want to behave like an adult, stay. If not, then by all means, go. If you can't show yourself to be a better human being than you assert that Roger is, sorry, you ought to take it elsewhere.

Leave a Reply to Cephus Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)