40 posts / 0 new
Last post
CyberLN's picture

This is a debate room. Non atheists are welcome to participate, debate, ask questions, make comments.

Disagreements are okay. Even snarkiness is fine. However, bullies will be banned. Bullying drives people away, discourages conversation, and serves no purpose. Harassment, brow-beating, intimidation, endless name calling, etc., will not be tolerated.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

jamiebgood1's picture
I'm glad you wrote this

I'm glad you wrote this Cyberln
I'm guilty of being a name caller when I get angry, and I need to control that better. Respecting each other is important if we want to get anywhere with any debate or conversation. If you boot me off just let me know so I don't try to come back. :)

ZeffD's picture
Yes, but constructive and

Yes, but constructive and satisfying debate is more than a matter of civility. If people are made to feel personally defensive, or their group is collectively under attack a discussion can be derailed. So addressing the opinion or point rather than attacking the person or group is important if minds are to change.

JamieB (who makes many valuable points) asked on another thread "are [people] lazy or do u think fake news has something to do with misinformation getting out to the public?" I too find that many Brits and USAmericans are not well-informed of what's going on and satisfying discussion encourages people to want to know what's true.

I don't think it is laziness and I think people care, but many people feel disengaged with politics or just uninterested. There is a feeling of powerlessness sometimes that is probably unjustified in N America and Europe. Discussions of politics in our society can become heated or tense because people are targeted or labelled rather than points addressed.

Many people seem intellectually unable to tell truth from fiction, an example being the number of people (I met one) who seriously questioned whether the moon landings truly happened.

It is also a question of when and where. Talking to someone with whom there's a close relationship face-to-face requires less care than on an essentially anonymous forum where the identity or intentions of a contributor cannot even be known.

mykcob4's picture

Do you think it is civil to have endless drive-bys?
Do you think it is civil for a person to ask leading questions and then ignore facts and relative questions?
Do you think it is civil for people to post YouTube propaganda videos?
Do you think it is civil for youth ministers to sick their youth upon us for no other reason than to disrupt and hijack threads?
John Breezy was civil yet he is gone. I was civil to him, others drove him away.
The ones that are driven away just can't stand up to scrutiny. They have an agenda set by their youth ministers. they don't even know what they are talking about.
Sometimes you have to weed the garden.
Also, the barrage of flaming discourse only comes when some simple minded person is offended by language that isn't even personal. They immediately think that they have the right to tell someone that they cannot cuss, edit language.
If those weak individuals can't handle blunt language, then they shouldn't even be here. I won't be held to THEIR standard.
I didn't see anything about Pitar when he posted things about people not sticking strictly to religious content. How is that any different than anything that I have done?

algebe's picture


I'll say this as a friend, but you can take it however you want. The very first time I posted here, you jumped down my throat for commenting on a topic that you said had already been discussed enough on this forum. I basically told to you get stuffed and carried on posting, but others who could make interesting contributions, even theists, might simply walk away thinking new members aren't welcome here. Some atheists are tough, and some are fragile.

On the subject of strong/language, something that I've also been guilty of, we shouldn't assume that atheist=unoffendable. Atheists might not care about Jesus Christ, hell's bells, and for god's sake, but some could be unimpressed by F- and SH-, etc. Let's tone it down. You and I and most people here have the language skills to make a strong point without resorting to strong language.

SBMontero's picture
@CyberLN: There're two ways

@CyberLN: There're two ways to attend with a person who says "god speaks to me", usually that person is screaming in the middle of the street while wielding a knife; the first is to reduce him/her and submit to a psychiatric examination -I don't know if there will be a psychiatrist or a police in the room-, The second is to take a laugh... in a forum I prefer the second option, but if someone prefers it we can opt by first.

There's an abysmal difference between respecting the someone's right to give his/her opinion, and respect his/her opinion. When someone says "I'm a Mormon", well, he/she has every right in the world to say it and to be it, and I have every right in the world to laugh about his/her opinion and choice.

I'm atheist, I know what someone is trying to do when quote the bible to call murderers to women, and I will not respect this opinion, or any other religious opinion about, like I didn't with John, and I hope anybody does.

But, of course, if an admin thinks, believes or opines that I'm doing the donkey when I opines anything, please don't hesitate to tell me.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ myk

@ myk

From the information text above the Debate Room forum:

The Debate Room at Atheist Republic is a forum that urges people from both ends of the spectrum and even those in between to have healthy interactions, exchange opinions and participate in debates about any topic.

The number of topics that one can debate over in this forum is bounteous and the good thing is that Atheist Republic heartily welcomes all who want to participate, irrespective of whether they are secular individuals, non-believers or even those who do not see eye-to-eye with atheists.

I see nothing about "you're not allowed to drive-by post". And did you stop to think that they may have become drive-by posters simply because someone told them to "fuck off"?
Nor do I see anything about "you're not allowed to post leading questions or ignore facts", or "you're not allowed to post YouTube propaganda videos".

- "The ones that are driven away just can't stand up to scrutiny"

To say: "Get the fuck out of here punk", is not to scrutinize.

- "Sometimes you have to weed the garden."

This isn't your garden! Your not an administrator here.
This is a debate forum called the "Debate Room" with the sole purpose of debating! If you're not interested in debating with believers, why are you reading/posting in the "Debate Room"? The "Atheis Hub" is for atheists only, so stay there if you're not interested in debating with believers? Nobody is forcing you to read the posts by believers.

- "If those weak individuals can't handle blunt language, then they shouldn't even be here."

Why shouldn't they be here? It's a Debate Room, the rules says nothing about "If you can't handle foul mouth, blunt langunage, then fuck off!". Why are you acting like this is YOUR forum? Why are you acting like you are an admin here?

- "I didn't see anything about Pitar when he posted things about people not sticking strictly to religious content. How is that any different than anything that I have done?"

That was a single incident by a long time member, while your posts of the discussed kind, are quite frequent.
As I recall, you have promised to "tone it down" several times...

chimp3's picture
I think cyberlyn does a damn

I think cyberlyn does a damn good job moderating this forum. AR needs no marine to guard its gate.

Pitar's picture
This is a privately held site

This is a privately held site with rules of engagement that are subject to censor, should that be appropriate action to inappropriate discourse and conduct here, so I don't understand why people convince themselves they have privilege to apply some imagined inalienable right to freedom of expression here.

There's lot's of flexibility in the front office for topics that do not fall within the context of this site, as I have observed and would not tolerate, because too much flexibility sets up a free-for-all culture of disrespect for self-discipline, self-policing and, ultimately, self respect. Once it digresses to the latter the site loses all legitimacy and there's no road back to it. Cliques form, bullying characterizes them and everyone walks on eggs before they give up and walk away completely, if not outright banned.

This is a site where atheism is a topic. Anti-theism is not the topic. Politics is not the topic. Bullying is not an acceptable conduct. If you are an atheist you are simply a person who has made a declaration of disbelief that needs no demonstration nor interpretation. It's fine to extrapolate the paths we all took to atheism but what is not okay is to characterize any of it in any manner with intent to cause hurt. There can be no joy in that unless the individual disingenuously uses atheism as a feigned shield to hide behind while executing hurtful ulterior motives. That conduct is transparent and when displayed on a privately held site it can receive immediate, and often indefinite retribution.

I'm not a parrot for the front office here and I carry no ill will towards anyone. I just know people can digress and destroy anything they touch unless there are safe guards in place. If maturity cannot ensure peace, safe guards must.

mykcob4's picture

So you will stop berating people that start threads that aren't religious...right?

mykcob4's picture
Isn't this post bullying?

Isn't this post bullying?
"I think your logic circuit is burned out. You should disconnect your mouth as a precaution until you can get it fixed."
It is a personal attack.
The post was made by Algebe replying to slipknot on the thread 'Why atheist afterlife is impossible'.

SecularSonOfABiscuitEater's picture
You know something.. the more

You know something.. the more you guys react to Dennis (Oops I mean Slipknot) the more he will keep posting the shit he posts. Every single one of his seemingly idiotic posts seems to have a piece of something that he's struggling to let go of. I could be wrong, but I can't be the only one who suspects his posts to be rather satirical..

mykcob4's picture
I think you are spot on

I think you are spot on Secular. I think this guy is struggling with having any faith at all as well as many other problems. Faith is the most glaring. He keeps referring to his god as a mother/sexual entity. It's psychotic.

SecularSonOfABiscuitEater's picture
I personally started feeling

I personally started feeling pity for him when he said he would get endless sex in Heaven. How bad does life have to suck for someone to compensate with such a thought? Wow I really do wish better for him.

algebe's picture
@Mykcob "It is a personal

@Mykcob "It is a personal attack."

Here's the line I was responding to.
"That is simply not the case. It is impossible to cease to exist. If it was possible to cease to exist then nobody would ever be born."

I was criticizing the total lack of logic in OP's comments. In plain language I was telling him that what he said was illogical, and that he should think more carefully before spouting more embarrassing nonsense. If that's a personal attack, then I'm guilty as charged.

Now are we going to have a flame war over this? If we are, let me know, because I'll be gone.

Alan Travis's picture
Isn't it remarkable how

Isn't it remarkable how atheists are so consistently uncivil? Flying Spaghetti Monster remarks. Ignorance accusations.
Anti-science accusations. Smug pretensions of intellectual superiority are absolutely rampant among atheists, and other Leftists.
There is no question that thousands of Christians are uneducated, and poorly read. No question that millions of Muslims support or approve of terrorism and unspeakable evil. But the vast majority of Christians, throughout the world, are generally peaceful and kind.
I say again, the Ivy League Colleges were all founded by Christians, with charters which reflect their Christian heritage, intent on enlightment and science. Then too, the claim by atheists so constantly repeated that America "is secular" citing "separation of church and state," is grossly in error. A compelling book proves as much, as does a reading of every coin and bill of currency ever produced for this country. Every state cites "God" in the preamble to its constitution.

Come, let us reason together. Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light excelleth darkness.

LogicFTW's picture
Flying Spaghetti Monster

Flying Spaghetti Monster remarks.

Really? Flying spaghetti monster remark is uncivil to you? You consider ignorance accusations uncivil? How about saying atheist are so consistently uncivil? That accusation is civil?

Smug pretensions of intellectual superiority

I admit I am guilty of that, I do try to minimize it. I would say lots of christians or any theist do the same, or just think we are going to burn in hell for all eternity, which I would say is worse.

But the vast majority of Christians, throughout the world, are generally peaceful and kind.

I would say a vast majority of atheist/agnostic are too, maybe not on these boards (atheist debate forum) but overall like you are talking about overall christians. Also, atheist do not have a long bloody history like christianity or other major religions do. There never been a war done in the name of "no god." No crusades etc.

"as does a reading of every coin and bill of currency ever produced for this country."

Not true, "in god we trust" did not appear on american currency until 1957. So not even close to every coin and bill of currency ever produced. Besides coin and paper money is in serious decline. You do not see in god we trust printed on credit cards/debit cards / electronic transactions which now make up the majority of financial transactions. If you want to say god gains additional credence because of "In god we trust" is printed, that credence is in serious decline.

Yes lots of ivy league colleges were founded by christians, hardly surprising, at the time of founding christianity was extremely dominant. It sort of like saying all the ivy league colleges were founded by white men. Sort of a "duh," it does not mean white men are some how superior to everyone else.

Also what is with "necroing" a 2 and half month old post to try and make your point about how atheist are in the wrong on an atheist board?

Alan Travis's picture
LogicForTW: "Not true, "in

LogicForTW: "Not true, "in god we trust" did not appear on american (sic) currency until 1957."

I have a 1935 Silver Certificate which reads "In God We Trust."

Here is a link to 1880 silver dollars which have the same phrase. So you are very far off the mark.

As far as what is a "duh," why is it that only 30% of children raised in atheist homes remain atheist in adulthood, when people of faith remain committed to their respective faith in far greater numbers? Atheism is, you atheists tell the world, so very truthful and rational and comfortable to you, why do 70% of you forsake it? And why do you need this safe space, cosseted in the midst of others who think and act like you do? Are you so insecure in your beliefs, so afraid of dissenting views?

Nyarlathotep's picture
GeniusIsDisruptive - A

GeniusIsDisruptive - A compelling book proves as much, as does a reading of every coin and bill of currency ever produced for this country.

Your statement is still false.

LogicFTW's picture
You are right, I did not

You are right, I did not write a super concise statement. I will fix it for you.

"A law passed in a Joint Resolution by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declared "In God We Trust" must appear on US currency."

It did appear on some currency before that. But the fact remains for a majority of time, for the majority of US currency there was no "in god we trust" written on them. And as I stated, printed money is in serious decline. Attaching religious validity to "in god we trust" printed on money is attaching it to a small segment of time and increasing decline.

Link to a solid peer review study showing that only 30% of children raised in atheist home remain atheist in adulthood please.
Also if that is the case, why are the total numbers of atheist in the world rising instead of falling?

Also "faithful" people remaining faithful to their respective faith is subjective. 200 years ago in the US, the number of regularly filled seats in churches on sunday to the number of people living in the country was about 80/90 percent. Today it is a little over 20%, maybe 40% if we believe the church's own numbers versus independent research. Talk about serious decline in faith. Studies also show that pace is accelerating in millennials. With young adults in the US having less than 10 percent regular sunday church attendance.

Did You Really Go To Church This Week? Behind the Poll Data by C. Kirk Hadaway and P.L. Marler The Christian Century, May 6, 1998, pp. 472-475
Testing the attendance gap in a conservative church.
by Penny Long Marler, C. Kirk Hadaway Sociology of Religion, Summer, 1999. (may be password protected)

I like to debate with theist. It is fun for me. I am a lot more confident there is no god then you are that your god is real. I challenge any god that if they are real to smite me down, I point out why this god idea is ridiculous all the time to the god's "followers" I am so confident I am right, I am perfectly willing to accept an eternity of hell/torment if I am wrong. The more I read and learn about various religions, the more I debate theist, the more I think about religion and god ideas, the more I realize just how incredibly unlikely any god idea is real.

If there was a way to collect on the bet, (a real resolution to the answer that both I and a theist would accept.) I would happily bet all my wealth and belongings, all my future earnings, all my rights, (I would be a slave to bet holder.) Even all the organs in my body and my very life that there is no god, to a theist, for just 1 dollar. I would take that bet over and over again too. This is how confident I am that your god, or any other god, (by the commonly accepted definition of god) does not exist. I doubt you can say the same.

I am also happy to sell you or anyone my "soul", depending on what you accept as proof of ownership of my soul, will dictate the price. (If you just take my word for it, 1 dollar will suffice.) If you want a piece of paper written out in legalease signed by me and with blood the trouble of that will cost you 100$

Ebay actually shut down the "selling of souls" because they consider it a scam. (People paying money for nothing, but a cheap piece of paper sent in the mail.)

Alan Travis's picture
The reason the number of

The reason the number of atheists is growing is that "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman

Materialism and atheism are rampant in socialist public education. They brainwash kiddies starting in grade school.
Darwinism was in steep decline when Stalin pointed out that it was a perfect "scientific" excuse to promote his communism.

After putting money into educators who did his bidding, Lenin saw an explosion in Darwinism. It was even suggested to Hitler: "You must read this book."

No less an evolutionary biologist than Stephen J. Gould has commented on the communist pedigree of Darwinism.

As to your unwarranted faith in "peer-reviewed papers," you seem not to know that very few scientific papers are ever verified. shows the graph of 30% atheist retention, versus 84% for Hindu, 68% for Catholic, and 76% for Jewish and Muslim.

Atheists lose, big time. Especially in Darwinism. Osama bin Laden had more children than atheists/agnostics Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Nye, Daniel Dennett, Michael Schermer, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Lawrence Kraus combined!

Finally, "Logic," let me help you out with the difference between "then" and "than." It looks a little difficult for you.

When you wish to compare something with something else, you would say "This is better THAN that."

THEN you will have mastered some elementary grammar that has thus far in life eluded you. It appears to me that you are wagering a very great deal on eternity when you can't master simple four-letter words, which should have been mastered in junior high school.

LogicFTW's picture
Your link is dead. 404.

Your link is dead. 404.

Sure you can talk about my grammatical then and than error.If people focus on grammatical mistakes instead of the topic I usually conclude they are avoiding the subject and trying to discredit via other means then being able to put together a solid argument that they are correct.

Alan Travis's picture

Even AFTER you received a lesson on the difference between "then" and "than," you still refused to think and learn.

"...discredit via other means then being able..."

More importantly, NO argument would be acceptable to you atheists. I have never seen a single admission or acknowledgement from any atheist anywhere to any Christian that they had what you call "a solid argument" much less that "they are correct."

And now since you can't spell, much less reason, I will add you as the second addition to my Ignore List. You waste too far too much time and say virtually nothing.

LogicFTW's picture
Ignored for then/than

Ignored for then/than grammatical error. Heh, I have a lot of people "tell me" they put on ignore. But that's a new one.

I would think the excuse that I do not use then/than correctly is pretty weak flimsy one. If that bothers you so much, you much put a lot of people on ignore, spelling and grammatical errors abound here. If you are so sensitive to grammatical/spelling errors, these boards, hell, almost any public boards must be very traumatic for you.


I think it is quite likely you decided to put me on your ignore list for reasons other than getting then/than wrong.

But hey what ever excuse you need to come up with to not have to actually respond to my points. I am going to go ahead and assume you just do not have a good counter argument, so you rather come up with a flimsy excuse why you ignore my post.

xenoview's picture

Here you go again crying about grammar. You are acting like a borderline troll with you tantrum over then and than.

Alan Travis's picture
xenoview, you seem terribly

xenoview, you seem terribly confused. It is you *brilliant* atheists who constantly tell the world how very *intelligent* and *rational* you are. Grammar is a good deal simpler than reasoning. If you *brilliant* atheists can't even write simple four-letter words, what does that say about how *brilliant* you are, hmmmm?

Leftists call anyone a "troll" who does not march in Leftist lockstep with them. When you atheists violate norms and rules on any religious forum, you preach "freedom of speech." But when your safe space is compromised with a real debate, you cry "troll" not "freedom of speech."

I'm not engaging in all the vulgar obscenities. I'm not afraid of hearing opinions different from mine. YOU people clearly are.

Why don't you grow up and act like adults, thinking adults, which you are always claiming to be. I don't see it.
I'll buy you a crying towel, xenoview. I can certainly afford it better than you.

Sky Pilot's picture


"Every state cites "God" in the preamble to its constitution."

That's not true. The Oregon State constitution preamble does not mention "God".


We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution.—"

Alan Travis's picture
Diotrephes: The Oregon State

Diotrephes: The Oregon State constitution preamble does not mention "God".

My, one state out of fifty. I stand corrected, sort of. But you are more corrected. God dominates, not secularism.

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..

chimp3's picture
Religious people dominate.

Religious people dominate. There are billions of religious but not one god.

Alan Travis's picture
No, there is exactly one God,

No, there is exactly one God, notwithstanding all the rhetoric and word games to the contrary.
"Which god" you will instantly retort.

The God Who made the heaven and the earth. That One.

chimp3's picture
No gods required in nature.

No gods required in nature.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.