Whatistruth(hypocritical moniker) created a thread specifically to get people to participate in a "Push-Poll". He didn't disclose his intention but we all smelled a rat. And we were right.

Nyarlathotep cornered whatistruth exposing his illogic in the thread 'Thoughts on Morality'.

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/thoughts-morality-video

So in response, whatistruth decided to be a little shit and start another thread that was basically a Push-Poll.

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/fast-topic-i-need-yesn...

He claimed he was conducting a study with another person. He also claimed that he was submitting this same poll to christians on another site (both were and are lies).
The result of this Push-Poll is this little gem which is an attempt to falsely discredit Nyarlathotep

From Whatistruth:
"Nyarlathotep,

In order to see if I was truly being illogical, I conducted a test. At the time of this post, I got 5 people to answer if your statement would naturally imply the conclusion I drew. I postulated 3 questions each with similar rational 2 religious and one non religious to dissuade from any bias. These were the questions:

1) If John Smith says "There is MUCH evidence for the life/death/resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Then is it safe to extrapolate with about 80%+ certainty John concludes that therefore Jesus Christ DOES exist?

2) If John Smith says "There is NO evidence for the life/death/resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Then is it safe to extrapolate with about 80%+ certainty John concludes that therefore Jesus Christ DID NOT exist?

3) ) If John Smith says "There is No evidence to support that Jane Smith is a bad person"
Then is it safe to extrapolate with about 80%+ certainty John concludes that therefore Jane Smith is a Good person?

Of those 5 people 2 were Christian and 3 I am postulating were Atheist. Of those 5 people 3 responded via forum on this website and two responded directly because I asked them in person. I asked your question word for word to avoid anything being misconstrued. Of the 5, 3 actually engaged in the question and confirmed my reasoning and 2 abstained and didn't engage on the basis of me not giving more information though I stated that I could not provide more information because that could potentially make a bias toward my perspective - please note that individuals stopped engaging in the study after several individuals, including yourself, derailed the conversation; though, it wasn't necessary. I'm not sure if you did this on purpose because you saw that my data was supporting my claim (one person I believe may be atheist confirmed my position and perhaps you wanted to stop it at one), but I digress. That means that out of a sample size of 5 (small I know; I wish I had more) I'll state that until I get more honest data it is rational to draw the conclusion I drew.

Most of our discussion and disagreement about this stemmed from your statement and my apparent misinterpretation of it. I already told you that if I was wrong I am sorry.

You have to realize (as I sure you do) that statements have implications. You also have to be aware of these implications. I see now that you are either A oblivious to these implications (which is possible), even though 3/5 would affirm that there are implications, or B, you know what the implications are but are rather attempting to frustrate me so that I come of as sounding irritated on this thread when a you make a claim but then run away from it's natural implications which have been confirmed by 3/5 people.

I hope its the earlier, but unfortunately, after what I have seen on this thread and the thread where I was collecting this data, it appears that you and mykob4 are really consistent at running away from core arguments of a thread and throwing personal insults around. It really appears that instead of really discussing a topic you guys and some others (NOT EVERYONE HERE THANKFULLY!) have been more skilled at derailing a topic and going into personal attack and trying to keep people going back and fourth on personal attack then trying to get to the heart of a topic and attempt to finish it. I'm not sure why you guys aren't willing to finish a debate even if it is a conclusion of "we'll agree to disagree".

I thought Atheists were interested in the truth! I really thought that I would come on here and find people who could have a conversation without relying on those types of insults to try and win a debate rather than making and fostering a space of honest reflection on one's point and keeping to that point until that point is resolved. This is what is done in academic circles and I have seen that many atheists are highly educated so I assumed that it would likely be the case here on this thread. I still think I may find it.

On another thread for example someone made a claim about scripture, they quoted a verse and said God was bad because of that verse. This quote was incorrect and found no where in scripture. I knew this but I also knew that his claim WAS INDEED supported by scripture. Instead of attacking his false quote and insulting him and derailing the discussion in such a way; I rather, in order to be faithful to a pursuit of truth I actually corrected him and SUPPORTED his argument (which I disagreed with) with a scripture that would confirm his accusation against God. I helped him out not because I think he's dumb. I think he's actually very intelligent. I think you guys are all actually very intelligent and am impressed when people bring up certain points (not insults). One reason why I'm on this website is because debating with people who have real questions and honestly search and question makes me really evaluate what I believe and get better or discard things that may be invalid. This kind of pursuit is what I was hoping to find here. I think I still can. I think I still can find that in you too as well as Mykob4. How are you guys supposed to win me over to your position if 80-90% of my discussions with you is not discussing core points but deflecting and receiving personal attacks that everyone auto-agrees to whether its supported or not?

I'm sorry if I have wrongly insulted you; again it is not my intention to be malicious or evil. If you point out that this is true and it is supported well I will repent and apologize to you =]. But until then I'm hoping that here on out I can find eventually a thread where we discuss these matters with the heart that really asks: What is truth? and pursue that answer responsibly, peacefully, and even passionately but why should it ever be disrespectful if you are pursuing truth?

I will now drop this subject and I look forward to your reply and discussions on other threads."

Fro,e me:
The fact is that this kid tried what he thought would be a successful method to proselytize and troll on an atheist forum. He found out that is not and would not be the case. So now he is trying this tactic. I find this a clear violation of the forum rules. In specific rules #1 and #4. No trolling and No scams.