Hah! I'm a member - since 2004, last visit before today was in 2007.

What's your username there?

We could be a pair of shit disturbers.

I'd do it for kicks since I have no desire to actually debate christianity. I much prefer the company of atheists.

 I asked about other forums, and I agree that RRS seems to be overwhelmingly atheist.  That's not a bad thing but if we all agree in principle makes for some boring debates.  Not to mention any theist brave enough to come here would get ripped apart.  Even the more intelligent ones don't stand a chance.  I'll look for you in this new forum.  I just created the username Ktulu.  I still enjoy reading the old debates on here.

 "At the risk of becoming the social leper around here, I'm going to go ahead and ask how you arrived at the moral conclusion that slavery is wrong. For the life of me I can't see the secular basis for the sanctity of human life and the autonomy of persons, on which, presumably, a condemnation of slavery must be built. Our lives seem to be spent in servitude to powers we rarely control, and under determinism we have no true autonomy."

This paragraph in itself warrants a good and lengthy answer, however, if you read the initial post, it asks :

"How do modern Christians justify this to themselves? Are the parts concerning the beating/owning of slaves "god-inspired" or not? Keep in mind all the horrors that have been caused by the enslavement of other human beings, which presumably would have been foreseen by the deity Christians usually believe in. "

It's just more of the same "We don't have to prove God exists, you have to prove he doesn't." argument.  

That whole "ultimate purpose" rhetoric is probably the one argument that I get the most.

I always just flip it around on them and ask them this :

 So, your telling me, that if you found out there was no god you would be out committing  all types of heinous crimes against humanity because nothing would matter ? Says something about you doesn't it ? 

It's real easy to demonstrate that there is nothing moral, good or loving about religion. But like you said, they usually just turn and walk away when their arguments start getting refuted. It's also easy to point out to them that all of their so called "morals" do not come from god but from themselves in the way they reject/accept certain tenets of their god belief to suit their own personal lives.

I always throw this quote at them from  when they start that :

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties. No religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death --Albert Einstein

I too like the website the way that it is.

However, I would not want to ban the theists altogether. The rebuttals to their arguments and other interactions have provided me with some really useful ammo in debates with people in the everyday world and in other forums.

I DO like the majority of the membership here being Atheist because there is so much logical/rational input here on any issue. But the debates are somewhat fun for me.

Interesting. Because if you go to a theist forum there will be various doctrinal differences and if you ask the atheist to conform to a prescribed doctrine of sorts they will say they are like cats. They can't be herded. They can't be taught to fetch.

I think it is because they still deficate in the dirt and bury it. [There is no reason or ration] 

[Laughs] Uh . . . actually, I think you grossly overestimate the atheist's ability to debate.

I see the majority of atheists [the majority implies the thousands of atheists I have debated with in the last decade and a half - minus 2] as anti fundimentalist fundimentalist. You are almost all the thing which you hate most. Most retard theists are not as devoted to the cause as you are the anticause. You are rebels without a clue.

Actually you are out of your element. You have no idea what you are talking about. You see . . . if you are going to criticize the Bible that is one thing. Better be on your guard when you talk to me. When you gather 'round to slap one anther's backs that is another. What do I have to work with?

Well, this is an obvious attempt to antagonize but let's see what you have here.  Atheists by definition do not hold to a doctrine (a set of beliefs).  The belief (as in faith) is what sets us apart from theists.  Let me see if I can simplify what you just wrote above.  "If I go to a believers forum, they all hold a set of unfounded beliefs, if you go to an atheists forum, they do not care for unfounded beliefs. "  I'm ok with what you said so far.  Then you attempt some levity with your cat 'analogy' (fails miserably and makes you seem as though an atheist beat you up for your lunch money, repeatedly)

Lets define atheist because you seem to have an issue understanding the term.  This is what wikipedia has to say about it: 

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

I fail to see how that affects someone's ability to debate.  As for your other rambling about 'fundimentalist' [sic]... not quite sure how someone's degree of dedication to what you call 'cause' is determined by their theistic affiliation, or lack there of.  

You make nothing but unfounded ad hominem attacks.  What, pray tell, type of theism do you adhere to?  Perhaps we may have something to debate after all.