Discussion forms are primarily used by people who are afraid of death. The most valued form of debate is one that can offer no resolution. By joining these debates the participants ensure that they will never have to stop and think about their mortality until they die at the keyboard.
Example.
Below is an excerpt of a discussion on Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion". The discussion is hosted by Amazon.co.uk. By discussing the question of "God's existence" the participants ensure the debate will never end. Angry Web Guide joined the discussion using the psuedonym, WAKEUP! The purpose of WAKEUP!'s input was to test how willing the participants were to continue with an argument no matter how ridiculous it became. Also, winding up athiests is funny. Note that at no time does anyone question WAKEUP!'s authenticity, blinded as they are by their own point of view.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:24 BST
RATIONAL says:
I wonder how long Amazon will let this thread go on? I seldom get an opportunity to debate this for so long before believers clear off.
Allow me to finish this with the following: Epicures, 300 BCE: "The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?"
"God" is impossible. Please, please, feel free to disprove anything I've posted. If you can't, please look at what you believe in and lead a good wholesome life that benefits humankind and our lovely planet. As Dawkins points out – isn’t the garden beautiful enough without the need for fairies at the bottom of it??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:26 BST
PEACE&LOVE says:
Have you read chapter 19 from Genesis, from a recent translation of the Bible by George M. Lamsa? I suggest that you get if you are truly interested in the Bible because it clears up misconceptions about the Bible mainly caused by lacking or bad translations. I recommend it highly. Many things are the same, but there are also new things in there. Also, I think it is not so expensive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:28 BST
Last edited by the author on 4 Nov 200816:28 BST
RATIONAL says:
PEACE&LOVE, none of this new translation answers any of the points that have been debated in this thread. You are ignoring undeniable logic in favour of rhetoric. This is the action that occurs so often when "believers" are challenged to the point where they have no valid argument. They then fall back on the mysteries of the lord and the devils tempting nature.If you have anything, and I mean anything, to contradict the arguments in this thread against the existence of the christian "god", then please share.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:30 BST
WAKEUP! says:
RATIONAL - You certainly seem to know your stuff. I do have one question.
Would you really say any of this to Jesus' FACE????
Case closed me thinks. ;)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to your post on 4 Nov 2008 16:31 BST
JOSEPH says:
How on earth can he say any of this to Jesus's face when he died 2000 years ago? He wasn't a god. Why not read some of these posts before coming to play on here?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 200816:32 BST
WAKEUP! says:
JOSEPH - You and I both know becasue of his aura that you'd be on your knees becasue of not understanding his language which is the language of Jesus. Scientists proved that God's language couldn't be understood by any man when they did tests which are on the internet which I'm going to find the link for to put an end to this but really i don't have to becasue of God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to your post on 4 Nov 2008 16:31 BST
DAWKINSFAN says:
WAKE UP! – Congratulations, you just made the most pointless and ridiculous contribution to this forum thus far!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:33 BST
WAKEUP! says:
DAWKINSFAN - On the contrary Sir. I am just getting warmed up! Listen - If someone does a pooh - And at the EXACT same time someone on the OTHER SIDE of the earth does a wee even though the two people have NEVER met - then how else can you explain that apart from Jesus??? Dawkins should be punished for what he's done and will be punished by the devil if God has anything to do with it. Last night God visited me on the toliet (not him on the toliet, me, he doesn't need to go) and made me realise about the pooh and wee thing. Dawkins doesn't even address this in his book probably (I haven't read it)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:35 BST
WAKEUP! says:
Joseph I can't find the link about the sceince tests on God's language but it's still a fact which is proved. If you need more hard evidence my mum's BEST FREIND said to her that she was worried she would get in a car accident because she needed new glasses but didn't have time to get them. Six month's later she DID have an accident. She had predicted it from God's clues. How can you possibly explain that? One day Dawkins could have an accident becasue he didn't listen. I am a christan and I don't want anything bad to happen to Mr Dawkins I'm sorry for what I said earlier although I do think that the devil would hurt him if he doesn't change his ways. I don't want Dawkins to go through what my Mum's friend went through with her bad hip which is still not healed almost a year later.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:33 BST
UNDECIDED says:
I have read this discussion over the past week with great interest. I am undecided on what I believe in, and its something that has evolved (excuse the pun) over time. I never beleievd in a god at all until recently. I am not sure I do now. I think I am going to read a Chesterton book and then read a Dawkins book and hope that helps. Should I also read Darwin’s Origin Of The Species?? I worry that I do not know enough about the theory of evolution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:37 BST
COMMONSENSE says:
UNDECIDED – May I commend your willingness to consider all sides of this fascinating debate. Whatever you decide I’m sure you’ll find Dawkin’s book to be a highly absorbing read. And yes, you should definitely read Origin of The Species!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:40 BST
WAKEUP! says:
I CANNOT BELIEVE some of the things I am reading on here. UNDECIDED please don’t waste any more time and read my PROOF argument from pooh. CASE CLOSED!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to your post on 4 Nov 2008 16:42 BST
GOODATHIEST says:
The argument from Pooh. God is getting better, I see. Can I request that you and God stay in the toilet?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to your post on 4 Nov 2008 16:45 BST
PD PRICE says:
You can't expect a serious reply to this until you can place your argument on a sound epistemological foundation! That you have entered into this discussion WITHOUT EVEN HAVING READ THE BOOK is as astonishing as it is insulting! Might I also suggest you learn to spell toilet correctly!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to your post on 4 Nov 2008 16:45 BST
M HARRIS says:
WAKEUP!Please return to using your medication. Either that or the illegal ones you are on have well and truly taken you to another world.On your Mum’s friend’s driving accident - was the clue she received something about not being able to see properly?? Funny that. Here is a prediction. Put a blindfold on and go for a drive. You WILL have an accident that very same day!!! (Obviously don't actually go out driving with a blindfold on).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to your post on 4 Nov 2008 16:46 BST
N HEARTS says:
WAKEUP! - If you are going to contribute anything further to this discussion, the onus is entirely upon you not to write further drivel like this. If you feel you can't do so, stay in your toilet. As for your charge that Dawkins should be punished for writing his book it just goes to show that in some quarters we have not moved one iota from religious dark age thinking. In short it demonstrates just why we need this book by Dawkins and the many others which expose the hate that fuels so much (I do not say all) religion. Your apology is welcomed but you should not have made the statement in the first place. In the meantime, since you have slagged it off without having read it, you should buy a copy of the book and attempt to read it with an open mind. You never know it may do you some good.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:48 BST
RATIONAL says:
Might we return to the core of this debate rather than getting involved in mindless tittle tattle?
Bottom line: God cannot exist in the way described in the christian faith - it is simply impossible. If you genuinely wish to better yourself, self-honesty is a good place to start, not self-delusion. Study the bible with your eyes and ears open and compare it to what is happening all around you.PEACE&LOVE - On a final note (I think, unless I can't stay away..), I notice that you continue to ignore my earlier posts regarding the impossibility of god.Rather than debate the bible, let's hear your responses to the points I have raised.I have no idea what that chap's post about the toilet was for? I suggest we ignore it. Some serious issues there I think.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:50 BST
WAKEUP! says:
I agree with RATIONAL. This is so silly. On and on with the same argument, back and forth. We should be playing in the garden. GOD's garden. I think if you look in your hearts, even those of you who read this silly book, look deep in your hearts you'll feel a sense of calm come over you. You'll smile and know that God exists becasue of all the overwhelming evidence around you, just as RATIONAL points out. Dawkins and Darwin are just MEN. That’s all. After darwin wrote his theory about Monkey men (Monkey men? Come on guys THINK) he still would have had to go about his day, eating and going to the toilet to pooh. God meanwhile, MADE THE EARTH IN SIX DAYS and NOT ONCE did he have to go to the toilet. Nothin that goes to the toilet can be truly great and no man, no matter what his achievements, can deny that after achieving them he was forced to sit on a toilet, just as every other pathetic man on earth. God introduced toilets for this very reason, so that man would know his place. Again, let me say - CASE CLOSED!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to your post on 4 Nov 2008 16:52 BST
RATIONAL says:
WAKEUP kindly READ my posts before quoting my name – I AM NOT ON YOUR SIDE!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:53 BST
WAKEUP! says:
HERE HERE RATIONAL! You and me TOGETHER!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to your post on 4 Nov 2008 16:53 BST
GOODATHIEST says:
Out of interest - how do you know god never goes to the toilet?
You replied with a later post
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2008 16:55 BST
WAKEUP! says:
How do both RATIONAL and I know God never goes to the toliet??? 1. It is not mentioned in the bible which is the word of God. 2. Jesus never went to the toilet and he is the son of God. 3. The wise men bought three gifts - gold, frankenstine and mur. They didn't bring nappies which is what my auntie brought round when Mum gave birth to my baby brother. 4. The rain is NOT god's wee as has been argued but if it was, Dawkins makes no attempt to explain this in his book probably which is basically proof of God. God doesn't go to the toliet but the rain IS actually (I forgot) a sort of toilet but not like china ones for human. God's rain remains the only clear proof I admit that. There's no other way to proove god really accept the rain. And the sun and planets and humans. Everything really because he made it all which it says in the bible. He did it in six days! How else could he do that if it wasn't for jesus? What you don't seem t understand is GOD is just like us. Of course he goes to the toilet and the proof is there in the rain and snow (God’s wee and pooh) which fall from the sky. But it doesn't change the fact about Darwin and toilets because in his days they didn’t have china bowls only a hole in the ground which is indignified especially when you add in all this nonsense about planet of the apes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to your post on 4 Nov 2008 16:57 BST
JOSEPH says:
And bang goes a sensible and rewarding debate because some clown thinks he has a sense of humour. You really aren't adding anything with this childish attempt at humour. Maybe you should just read other peoples' posts and leave the silliness out of it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to your post on 4 Nov 2008 17:05 BST
L.B HOLMES says:
WAKEUP! maybe Mum and Dad told you this, and I don't want to step on their toes, but this is fantastic stuff. Please keep a copy of this post and read it again when your 50yrs old. It is precious!I've been involved in some hefty debates, but I can (mostly) always manage a conciliatory laugh afterwards. Many of my friends are religious, and even though we are passionate with our views, a sojourn of good humour allows a lasting relationship.This obsession with God's wee, Darwin's pooh and Jesus' lack of both has brightened my working day. I do have a quick question though: Why did the three wise men bring FrankensTINE (sic) as a gift? Seems a little inappropriate, as does not bringing nappies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point Angry Web Guide left the discussion due to incredulity.
Posts
