The Bitchspot Report Podcast #72

Bitchspot Report New Icon

It’s another all-news show, we spend a lot of time wondering why the religious are so credulous.  A new study shows that children from religious homes have a problem telling fact from fantasy, a Republican candidate is convinced sperm enzymes cause AIDS, Tony Perkins thinks Obama is about to put all Christians in jail, a church in Kentucky hires a registered sex offender and is surprised when he rapes a boy, another study asks Christians what they think Jesus would like and finds most people don’t care about Jesus and Ken Ham and space aliens.  More stupidity from the mouthpiece of the Ark Park.  It’s 90 minutes of conservative atheist goodness, stick around!

201 thoughts on “The Bitchspot Report Podcast #72

  1. Come now Cephus, what do you really think about religion? I just can't tell since you're so subtle.

    All these problems with religion. And religion does have it's problems.
    But it does give the human spirit a dream, a reason to look up at more than ourselves.

    And a reason for life, instead of 'it's an accident'. If only we had the freedom for people to examine and join, or leave religions all around the world. Competition eliminates the weak and rewards the good. Now? We don't have that, not with the religion that worships violence and thinks death is a reward.

    1. The only thing that matters is reality. All the fantasy in the world, all the imagination, all the wishful thinking and dreams, they have no meaning if they don't better our understanding of reality. The real world that actually exists around us is all that makes any difference. Otherwise, it's just mind games and mind games are childish and pointless.

      And by the way, Christianity is a death cult. Surely even you have figured that out by now.

          1. And I could suggest that atheism has colored your reasoning.

            You often use careful reasoning laid out in a clear manner, why not explain your claim that Christianity is a death cult the same way?

    1. The problem with that article is that none of it is true.

      Lowering taxes stimulates economic activity, which increases revenue. Not only does it increase revenue but it does it due to helping the economy, which is a good thing. If raising taxes was the only function of government, just confiscate all earnings and wealth. Are you pretending that would be a good thing?

      Death panels? They exist in the UK, NICE is the acronym. And in Obamacare they exist to lay out restrictions on care, like cancer treatment above certain ages. Yes, it's denied, but tell that to cancer treatment centers that can't ge authorization to treat. Here is a undisputed story.
      Just like justice delayed is justice denied, when you have cancer treatment delayed is treatment denied.

      Each and every part of that story is simply not factual, it's a propaganda piece.

      1. I'm not getting into a debate on whether or not high or low taxation benefits a country or indeed whether Obama is a Muslim or not, that is irrelevant. The purpose of the story was to show evidence of motivated reasoning and I directed the link to Cephus to hopefully read before replying to your statements

        Actually your response in denying the article's validity only adds weight to the existence of motivated reasoning.

        In particular the last paragraph speaks volumes of the futility of debating with the likes of you

        "So next time you feel the urge to argue back against some idiot on the internet…pause, take a deep breath, and realize not only that arguing might not do any good, but that in fact, it might very well backfire"

        1. You can't debate it. The facts are not on your side. And my response showing that was motivated reasoning.

          I am tired of the propaganda machine spewing lies then pretending any challenge is unreasonable.

          And why do you think I'm arguing with an idiot on the internet? I don't disagree, but I was wondering at your reasoning.

          1. He's not arguing. Like an idiot he pretends there is no debate, that his set of talking points are unchallenged. Much like the global warming fear mongers.

          2. And you are unable to debate because you have no motivated reasoning? I would think that your propagandist mind set would have motivation to reason, the chance to impose a statist control over debate. That's fascism, in effect.

            No thanks. My motivator is to avoid that kind of trap.

          3. Don't you have motivated reasoning?

            Or do you admit to any motivations?
            You tossed out the article, nobody lured you into doing so.

          4. Are you going to put an article out on your own and then shut down any discussion with cut and paste?

            What sort of motivated reasoning is that?

          5. Still going to post a story then use cut and paste to avoid discussing it?

            How revealing.
            You just wanted to post propaganda and then leave feeling like you did your part?

            Drive by trolling.

          6. I'm curious, what information do you avail yourself of that isn't what you would consider propaganda?

            This is a sincere question, so I'll thank you in advance for responding with a sincere answer.

          7. If you didn't want to be drawn into a debate then you should have considered that before posting a story on a discussion site.

          8. It seems above your skill level.

            Yet your motivated reasoning is supposed to go unchallenged?
            I don't think so. You might want to figure out what debate actually is.

          9. If you can't be bothered to debate, then this is probably the wrong sort of forum for you.

            Even the name of the platform "Intense Debate" seems to point out that cut and paste to avoid debate may not be what the designers had in mind.

          10. It is your motivations that drew you to post that story. It's your motivations that pushed you into trying to pretend the talking points in that story had credibility.

            It's your motivation that activates your self defense mechanisms and warns you you can't win at any debate of substance on those points.

            So, show your cut and paste mentality, but remember that this forum is all about discussion and debate, if you don't want to do that, then other places may be a better fit for you.

          11. You can't. It's outside your comfort zone and you're not even honest enough with yourself to figure out why.

            You might actually have to admit you've been wrong all these years.

          12. Motivated reasoning is why we're all here, even you.

            Different motivators, but it's still motivation.

            And if you won't admit and discuss yours why did you post the story?

          13. Still using cut and paste after you posted a story on a site here for discussion.

            You really ought to figure that part out.

          14. Fine, if you can't defend your positions and talking points just say so, but don't blame me.

            Too bad your motivators are lacking facts.

          15. Oh, now after 40 times it's almost making sense finally (not)

            If you are unable or unwilling to defend your positions because you finally realized I'm motivated, why come back and say so?

            It makes you look a bit childish.

          16. only show motivated reasoning I will not engage in direct debate on any subject as it is utterly pointless. Yall future responses will be that as you sThis will be my last post on this thread as it has gone too far to the right so regardless of your guaranteed response to this statement my f

          17. Still can't rise to the occasion? There is a name for guys with a that problem. But don't worry they make a little blue pill that might help you out….

            Perhaps next time you consider posting propaganda you will reconsider, if you can't defend it.

          18. Ironically due to your motivated reasoning even debating about my ability to debate a subject is also fruitless so I won't be drawn in

          19. Because you know all those things are true.

            As the son of a muslim Obama has no choice, islam claims him. I already disproved two other parts to that story.

            Propaganda doesn't work as well when it's challenged and examined. So, progressives put their nose in the air and pretend there is no debate.

          20. Of course not, you don't like looking foolish when I lay out a case that proves you wrong.

            I understand, you pretend to be brave but liberals underneath that have a thick layer of yellow.

          21. Still not being drawn into the debate on whether I can debate with you due to your motivated reasoning.

          22. Obama can't be defended, so your propagandist author wants you to avoid discussion.

            How does Obama feel towards islam?
            He made visiting mosques part of his white house protocol.
            "White House national security aide Ben Rhodes said the visit is standard protocol for Obama.."

            Yes, he made it the protocol.
            Does he treat other religions that way?

            But how does he treat islamists in the White House?

            And not only that, he allows his positions to influence his policies.

            That's why you won't be drawn into a debate. You know you'd lose.

          23. Still not being drawn into the debate on whether I can debate with you due to your motivated reasoning.

          24. Why are you here if you don't want to discuss or debate?

            You posted an inflammatory piece not based on any facts or history then decline to defend it? I can see why, it's not defendable. But if anyone is wasting time and space here it's the one that won't discuss or debate.

          25. I've explained why I am here when you first asked me that 12 posts up.
            Cephus has since thanked me for the post so my being here has been worthwhile at least according to the site moderator.
            Still not being drawn into the debate on whether I can debate with you due to your motivated reasoning.

          26. Motivated reasoning. Yes, truth motivates me.

            What sort of motivation do you have I wonder, it can't be a search for the truth, or even the desire to discuss it.

            Trolling, by any other name is still the same.

        1. Yes, I'm sure you choked when you said that.
          Alinsky doesn't want you actually debating with your opponents, are you going to go against your normal rules for radicals?

    1. I've tried to engage you in actual debate and discussion. Without much name calling or any trolling.

      If you won't be drawn into a discussion, why are you here?

      1. "Yes, I'm sure you choked when you said that".

        That is an insult and I will not debate with you due to your motivated reasoning yet it seems no matter how many times I state this you insist on providing more evidence for this motivated reasoning, which only strengthens my position.

          1. Still not being drawn into debate due to your motivated reasoning
            I don't know how many times I will need to tell you this but I will continue to do so

          2. Label and divide. Label and dehumanize…
            Of course I have motivated reasoning, what other kind of reasoning is there?

            Just nonthinking reasoning of the indoctrinated, mindlessly droning talking points.

        1. " The left is famous for the way they silence any non conformists." Roger we don't care if your GAY! You just make stupid comments. You TROLL, and you STALK, and to what end? You have nothing to offer. You are a Joke, and Cephus keeps you around; like a court Jester for the rest of us to pity the fool. ( The Fool being you Roger) Do you do parties? Roger, I could make millions with you at Dem fundraisers. Your pure gold to the left! Please keep it coming! You are like Manna from heaven for the Dems. Sweat, sweat Manna every comment Roger makes looks like gold! Because of him we have President Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton 2016. Roger is are our best TOOL for a better AMERICA! Suck on that TEA! Jackass! PS please don't stop commenting we really need you. LOVE Hillary.oxoxoxoxoxxoxoxooxooxoxxoxoooxoxoxoxoxoxoxxoxoxoxxxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxooxoxoxoxxoxoxoxoxoxoxxxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxooxoxooxoxooxoxoxoxooxox!

          1. I realize you don't have the guts to call me what Wee did, or what you called Kevin.

            Could it be your lack of masculinity is bothering you?
            And for you to pretend you came and posted that comment as part of any discussion or debate? It's laughable, and of course that identifies you as the troll and stalker.

          2. Your attorny!! I knew it.


            IT NEVER ENDS!!!!!




          3. You are taughting me with information you paid your lawyer to dig up on me.

            And that was BEFORE I asked a question.

            Your lawsuit is not a topic of this forum, and you continue to threaten me with it here.


          4. Cephus, I realize this one is hard to ban, he keeps using new ISP's and all. But I bet you could handle that if you put your mind to it.

          5. I'm not the one that keeps threatening people with lawsuits on this forum.


          6. Did you switch to a new ISP for that comment?

            I'm still hoping that you pretend to be here for issues.
            There are plenty to chose from.

            Hamas getting pounded into the sand lining their tunnels, Isis destroying all culture in Iraq as their religion demands, so many to pick from. Even the fiscal disaster this president has been.

            Can't you even pretend?

          7. You know what ISP's I use because you have lawyers investigating me, why ask. Just to show off to Cephus what he lets you get away with.

          8. I don't let him get away with anything, if he were following you around, he'd do it whether he was posting on this blog or not. I have no horse in this race whatsoever.

          9. On other blogs I can defend my self against his lawsuit bullying.

            Here on this blog you stated we can not bring up lawsuits.I followed your rules, he does not.

            And you do nothing.

          10. I'm sorry, I haven't seen him threatening lawsuits here. I looked, I haven't seen it. Might you point it out? Besides, it's all a bunch of bullshit, there is no such thing, this is all a bunch of worthless masturbation.

          11. I\’ll tell you what I tell everyone else. Leave the moderation decisions to me. I don\’t need your suggestions. Debate ideas, not people.

          12. So he can debate using lawsuit threats, but I can't.

            Fair site you have here asswipe.

        2. Ideologists have a vested interest in silencing non-conformists. Every ideology defines non-conformists differently.

          1. Instead of throwing labels, why don't you actually post a comment that explains itself.

            Karl Marx is published. He was never a political prisoner, in leftist communist regimes that does happen.

            See, I can explain my position. Can you?

          2. You are being intentionally obtuse. My comment explains itself to people who are looking for serious minds to exchange and consider new ideas with. Since you are not one of those people, I'll dumb it down for you. The commenters at CVN are ideologues. It is a community closed to alternate perspectives. In a very small way, it is representative of all ideologist communities whom have shut themselves off to dissension.

            Your own commenting history is an even greater egregious example of a closed mind. Not only are you unwilling to consider different perspectives, you refuse to acknowledge when you have misstated facts … right down to misspelled words.

          3. Very well put Smith
            His motivated reasoning is so ingrained and coupled with a distinct odour of ignorance in many subjects, means it is fundamentally pointless to discuss any different point of view with him.

            He ignores valid sources of information including peer reviewed scientific papers in favour of his own pseudo science, which is utterly without actual evidence.
            He refuses to accept the difference in evidence and outcomes of that evidence. I.e. diversity isn't evidence to support evolution or design but is a result of speciation. Its like saying this puddle fits exactly inside this hole therefore this hole must have been designed for this puddle.
            I have therefore decided to respond with a single statement to him going forward. Doubtless he will again attempt to engage with me but as engagement is utterly pointless with such a closed mind I will only respond with my single statement.

          4. This from the person who can't show that any of the points in your story were correct?
            From the person who repeated almost 40 times that you wouldn't / couldn't defend that story because I had 'motivated reasoning'?

            You ignored everything I said, which goes to the heart of your motivation.
            And of course the last of reasoning when your motivation is in motion.

            You have decided that I own you each time we debate so you're going to chicken out.

          5. Regardless of how many times you attempt to engage with me directly or just decide to throw insults at me I will not enter debate with you due to your motivated reasoning.

    2. Cephus is now helping Roger with his lawsuit, providing phone numbers and such.

      He gets a hard on for all the traffic Roger brings to his site.

      Don't expect Roger to go anywhere.

      1. You asked for the phone number, dumbass. I provided it. If you're going to be this obnoxious, you'll be the next one to go. For all of his faults, at least Roger isn't a twit.

        1. I asked Roger, not you, fuck face. I was making a point. A point about you allowing him to hang his lawyer over me and everyone else that disagrees with his arguments.

          Yet threatening to ban me every time I point it out.

          And didn't you claim he didn't even have a lawyer, What happened to that BS?

          1. He exposed you and your shallow style of commenting.

            And now you know not just a name but a phone number.

            Can we please get back to a topical issue?
            There is enough in Ukraine to write a book, doesn't the real world interest you at all?

          2. Oh course. You are the star of Bitchspot. Whatever you wish.

            What would you like to discuss on the topic of Ukraine?

            Will Cephus be massaging your balls as we discuss it?

          3. Star? Hardly.
            And if you don't want to discuss Ukraine it could be how Israel is defending all the millions of Arab citizens from rocket attacks. They don't use muslims as human shields, but muslims do.

            What does that say about the religion of peace?

          4. You are the star, there is no denying it.

            You want to threaten me with your lawyer? Right this way, you have the red carpet.

            Want to call poof a hag and tell her that her vagina smells? Very good sir, you get the center table.

            Want to point out that you get special treatment on this site? BANNED!!!

          5. Is this where you mention my grandfather and sexual situations again?
            Is this where you defame me by saying I would harm children again?

            If you read the story I'm not the star, I'm the textbook example they use because they don't agree with me. But don't let me stop you from your rant, it's educational for them to see the example of muslim friendly atheist that seems to have gone bad IMO.

          6. Wee, on the advice of his attorney, has had to move his family in order to keep them safe from, you.

            That is part of the court actions happening because of your lawsuit bullying.

            And it seems like you are now getting help from Cephus.

          7. Of course not. If that were the case it would have been cheaper for him to get a restraining order based on the threats he alleges I made.

            I haven't, and he knows he hasn't a chance to get a restraining order for imaginary threats.

            This was a move for other reasons, to hide his sorry self from the consequences of his mistakes.

          8. A restraining order is not good enough. Wee wanted to make sure you have no idea where his children are, and he took the advice of his attorney and got them far away from you.

            Then you come on this site and brag about it while Cephrus jumps and claps and pretend everyone is here to read his POS articles.

          9. So, you just admit this wasn't about being safe, but Wee trying to make a statement.

            And conveniently hide too so that he doesn't have to face consequences for his mistakes. If you don't like his articles, then go someplace else, it's really simple.

          10. No, I said a retraining order wasn't good enough protection, you can still harm his children with a restraining order issued.

            He needed to make your you had no chance to make physical contact them them at all.

          11. After I'm banned, will I still have access to your giggly little podcast?

            You should have done what iamatheast did a long time ago and ban Roger right from the start. He now owns and runs your site..

            Roger is the answer to your prayers. You can pretend everyone is here for you brilliant insights.

            Farewell you POS conservative. You sellout.

            Have fun chasing Roger's little theologian ass around. He already knows your ISP address and he is ready to add you to his lawsuit the moment you disobey his word.

            And that goes for anyone that dares disagree with Roger on this site.

            Thanks for the phone number for Roger lawyer you kiss ass.

      2. And by the way, I don't give a damn about traffic. There are no ads here. I make no money. Traffic is irrelevant. I couldn't care less. Stop being a git.

        1. The only time anyone reads your BS articles is when it's about Roger. He has become the main topic of your site.

          And we all see it. When he is gone, we are all gone. And when you ban me, he won't stay here for long after Wee stops coming.

          1. Roger making comments about my ass again.

            He will probably watch Stardust again tonight, too.

            The STAR of Bitchspot, Roger.

          2. The door hasn't slammed I see.

            So you're hanging around, but just pretending to be upset by the way the discussion has evolved?

          3. The discussion always evolves towards my ass when you are around.

            I'm not interested.

          4. i'm not interested, So please don't mention my ass again, and what you would like to see happen to it.

          5. Here's the quote. Stop talking about violent actions on my ass, you creepy plaintive.

            Roger 174p · 48 minutes ago

            "hit you backside"

          6. My wording refers to the posterior portion of your body, yours refers to a specific sphincter.

            Not the same, and you're wrong – still.

  2. Roger 174p · 1 minute ago
    Why do you keep using the term bullying?

    Can you quote where I did that?

    Because ever time I make a comment you tell me I have to go to court. Or remind me that your lawyers are tracking down my ISP's.

    Instead of debate you try to intimidate me me with legal action on this forum.

    That's fine.

    But I can't retaliate on this forum because the moderator threaten to ban me if I mention your lawsuit.

    Yet, apparently he has no problem with you doing it EVERY TIME I post here.

          1. I used it to illustrate bad manners matter.

            She happened to be a woman, but that was her insistence that it was even part of the debate. I wouldn't have known or cared what her gender was if she hadn't made sure I knew it.

          2. You are right. As soon as I talk about anything you threaten me with a lawsuit.

            I'll try again.

            Why are you watching movies for teen girls?

          3. And I'll answer again. Why do you need to know?

            There is someone that can answer that for you, call him if you think you deserve an answer.

          4. I'll ask your lawyer since you keep threatening me with him.

            What is his phone number?

          5. Kinda hard with lawsuits being threatened in each reply.

            You ready with that phone number?

          6. You are right. He is a waste of your time. On the other hand, you have the ability to create a story line. Why not focus your energies there?

            Like you, I am no longer a young man and I am thinking about what I will leave behind. In your passion for writing you have an opportunity to create your legacy. Why not focus on that?

            A wise man told me, "Play to your strengths."

          7. I have and I continue to do so.

            A wise man told me once, don't teach a pig to sing.

            Don't bother singing for me. You can't get it right and I'm not going to give you any advice on how to get better.

          8. It's not about his actually needing a phone number.

            It's just a taunt he throws in my face. He's signed up for groups with my email address, he's done all sorts of things.

            He simply doesn't take any issue seriously. Once you understand that, his comments make a lot more sense.

          9. That statement proves itself false.

            I have never advocated for violence outside of self defense.
            I have never mentioned any child in connection with any violence.
            I have never suggested any actions at all towards anyone in any violent manner, particularly children.

            For you to defame me in this manner is beyond excuse.

          10. Didn't you call his children, "rat children? "

            And that you don't care if they die?

          11. Yes, they do, but there are a lot of people around here, and I\’m not pointing fingers or naming names, who spend a lot of time calling names and posting insults instead of just holding a rational, mature, intelligent debate on the issues. There are so many people who are embracing the ad hominem fallacy as a way of life, it\’s ridiculous.

          12. Guilty as charged, Cephus. If roger didn't come here, I probably wouldn't either. I don't agree with your atheistic perspective but you call the bad actors in the "Christian" world out and I'm down with that. As I see it, roger is one such person. Claims to be a Christian, treats everyone who doesn't lick his feet poorly. Gives conservatism and Christianity a bad name, as if either needed help in that department.

            I'm not interested in the Atheist vs. Christian debate. It's not an argument that's won on the basis of logic or scientific method … at least from the perspective of the faithful. Anyone of faith who tries to engage from that perspective has lost before they've started.

            Boot me if you like. It's easier to bat the resident nitwit down.

          13. The trolls, you are so predictable.
            It's sad, if most folks knew how lame they might sound or act they would change and try to improve themselves.

      1. You don't hate to interrupt. Often it's the only way you can drum up someone to talk to. Do yourself a favor. Shut off the computer and go meet your new neighbors. Maybe one of them will introduce you to your new roommate.

          1. Yes, yes. I'm rubber and you're glue. I know you are but what am I. My big brother … etcetera, etcetera.

            Reply for banana.

          2. While it's nice that you replied to him, he really needs to find a life outside of living under the bridge with the trolls.

  3. I now understand why Cephus allows Roger to comment here. And why I now agree with him, Cephus is wiser than I am, in that at one time we as Atheist were denied a forum to express our views; to deny this Roger person we would be as guilty as those like him. Let him speak, and let his words fall by the wayside of Science ,Logic ,and Common sense. He ,and those like him are destine to the past. I now see why you let him speak here. Thank you Cephus for showing me my logic was unclear with this Roger creature. I now understand your path. Well done Sir, well done indeed. This is not sarcasm. Dam I can't believe how long it took me to get this! Thank you for your patients Cephus.I am a FAN for life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Very well put sbj
      To ban someone for having a different opinion would be hypocritical and would bring the site down to the level of many other Christian sites.
      However banning is permitted if the person in question resorts to just plain taunts or insults.

      1. Which is exactly what happened and why two people, the first two people to *EVER* be banned on this blog, ended up taking a permanent vacation.

    2. It really has nothing to do with any of that. I have a comment policy. The others violated it and got what they deserved. Roger has not. So long as he follows the rules, he can stay. Anyone who violates the rules will find themselves elsewhere.

Leave a Reply

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

Optionally add an image (JPG only)