Atheism: A Quest for Truth, or a Clever Disguise for Trolling?

In my experiences in life I find that all Atheists primarily fall into one of three categories: Nihilists, Agnostics, and Anti-Christians. Nihilism was originally popularized by the early Romans, although it wasn't actually termed Nihilism until the 19th century. Around that time it became popularized by such philosophers as Jacobi, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche. It is still quite popular today, however most who practice it refer to themselves as Atheists. It is simply, a belief of nothing. This is, in my opinion, the only true form of Atheism. You simply do not beleive in anything. Agnostics are those who really don't see any reason to believe in any god, but are aware that there isn't enough evidence to disprove the existance of one either. Many agnostics, also, refer to themselves as Atheists. I know a few self-proclaimed Atheists who believe in macro evolution and such, but are aware that it remains unproven and realize that there is no definitive evidence to the existence of the unverse or humanity. At the end of the day they will admit that they are technically Agnostic. These are really, just Atheists being honest with themselves. THERE IS NO DEFINITVE PROOF FOR THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE OR THE EXISTENCE OF MAN. All Atheists should consider themself Agnostic or Nihilistic because of this, but there yet remains a third category.

I recently entered into a debate with a girl named Rosa Rubicondior the debate began here:
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2011/04/do-you-want-to-convert-atheist.html
I was somewhat perturbed by this thread because there is no evidence that exists to this degree which can prove any theory for the existence of the univers or the existence of life. So by Rosa's standards we all should just give up on science as well as religion. What an absurd idea. Anyone with any kind of understanding of mathmatics knows that we exist in a universe of probabilities. When it comes to evidence it is only logical to go with what we can reasonably deduce to the highest probability. Even most major crimes are solved this way. So I began to turn her own method back on her, my claim being that as it was her method it should be easy for her to demonstrate it. Every challenge I proposed she completely ignored (See for yourselves look on the page for greg_wizner to find my posts and her responses to them). She in no way made any attempt to counter me. Instead she insulted me and harshly disrespected my beliefs and opinions. In other words, she dodged my questions and resorted to mud-slinging. She threw some half-hearted responses at me, but nothing provable to the degree which she demanded of Creationists. Eventually I realized that she wasn't listening to anything I was saying (or I guess in this case it would be reading), so I ended the debate. Then I stubled across this:
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/search?q=What+makes+you+so+special
Actually, I had skimmed through it once, because she used it as a response to one of my challenges, but it didn't dawn on me right away. This thread describes a nice and fancy-sounding fairy tale explaining the creation of the universe and the birth of life, one problem: it in no way even attempts to live up to the standards which she demands of others. So she can make any claims that she feels and call them science, but the rest of us need hard, tangible evidence. I couldn't get beyond the level of hypocrisy being exhibited here. So, I once again engasged. Once again She ignored every challenge, using mud-slinging as her only offense and defense. At one point, when I informed her that there was no substantial evidence for macro evolution, she posted links to "proof for macro evolution" websites. That's how she was going to respond? By google searching for proof and posting the results? The information contained in those links was, as I would have guessed, weak and insubstantial. As the debate wore on I eventually caved and began to fight fire with fire, resorting to petty name-calling and other offensive such revelry. It didn't take long before I realized what I was doing and made an attempt to convince Rosa to have a clean respectful debate. She was not in the least bit interested (Once again, you can see for yourself. Go to the link. Look for my name. It's all there). I could tell she was running out of steam when she actually made a very heavy contradiction. Not long after that, she began using my own arguments (which she had previously deemed as unscientific) against me. She even said in her own words that I was too stupid to think of such things. When I pointed out her error, she blocked my comment. She said it was "excessively abusive". This, after she had done nothing but berate and insult me from the begining. We'll here's the comment she blocked, word for word (I saved it before hand because I suspected she was going to block it):

"Well, Rosa, I guess we're done here. When this interchange first began, I was being quite congenial and even respectful. It was you who continuously barraged me with insults and snyde remarks. Eventually, I caved and joined you in tossing out a few jabs. Recently I began to think and feel that this debate was getting out of hand with all of the mud-slinging and tried to appeal to you to have a clean and mutually understanding exchange. Your response made it clear that you had no intention of doing so. Now, <i>you</i> tell <i>me</i> that <i>I'm</i> going too far and if i don't check myself, will find my comments blocked. I'd call that incredibly hypocritical, but that'll just be giving you an excuse to block my comment. So, I'll leave it up to the readers to decide what type of behavior that is. Furthermore, I would like to point out that I actually did not come to know God and who He was until I was about your age, and to suggest that I must be afraid of God is absurd. God cannot hurt me. I state this boldly because if I was truly afraid of Him, my phobia would prevent me from doing so in fear that He would prove me wrong. It is impossible for God to maliciously hurt a person, it defies His very nature. Your continual implications in these manners is discernible proof that you really have no idea what I believe, or why I believe it. That in of itself weakens your argument. To debate me that my beliefs are wrong with no understanding of what they actually are is farcical. I may be wrong, but I can only see two valid reasons for you to post this now. Especially given that my last post didn't really attack <i>you</i> personally as it did your agrument.

1)It's an easy way to skirt the issues at hand. You say that you want others to see me for a paranoid, delusional, theophobe. However, if anything, I believe that they'll recognize the pattern of you changing the subject every time a pose a challenge at you.

2)You've basically prepared yourself an invincible defense. Now, when I post a comment that you have no valid response to, you'll just block it. Then, you can follow up by posting your own comment explaining how "vulgar" and "abusive" my comment was and I end up looking like the bad guy to anyone following along. Heck, I'll be surprised if you don't block this comment. If you do it'll be because you've run out of steam and have no response. In other words I'll know that I've won. If you don't block it, then everyone else will (know that I've won)..."

It seems to me that the only reason she blocked this comment was to save face, but decide for yourselves. So, what's my point?

I became suspicious, of Rosa's intentions. She, obviously, had no intention of seeking any kind of truth. She's much too close-minded for that. So, why pursue science? Or, is she really pursuing science? A little reasearch and I soon realized that Rosa has almost twice as many blogs about religion as she does dealing with science or politics, and the more recent you get the more the focus on religion grows. Then, I began to think of many "Atheists" who act similarily. They're more concerned with disproving God and the Bible than actually proving anything that they believe. The only logical answer: Rosa (and those like her) are Anti-Christian trolls. The evidence is in her blogs. If that isn't trolling what is it? If she really only desires truth why waste so much energy defaming the beliefs of others to no avail? The is no question or discrepancy out there regarding God or the Bible that cannot be debunked. She's arguing just to argue. Well, that's what it looks like anyway. Your comments?