fucking terrifying

[The STE]

http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/
not sure if this should go in True Crime or not, but here it is. I promise, it's not one of those 'screamer' things

[ItsAlive75]

I can't get past the title screen.

[Dante'sInferno]

That was intense...

[monalisa]

Wow, thanks for posting that Sam.

Personally, I am disturbed by, what I consider to be, the "I'm so happy I could puke" look on Tom Cruise's face and the "glassy-eyed, deer in the headlights" pictures of Katie Holmes. I think she looks totally brainwashed, sorry, just my opinion.

The church of scientology is very scary.

[hellfire1]

ok... i was about to go to bed, but now i'm too freaked out... seriously.

[ENTITY2000]

that was pretty fucked up!

[The_Return]

I dont even know what to say after watching that...like Hellfire, I likely wont be sleeping much tonight either.

[horrorobsessed]

Charles Manson studied scientology when he was in prison once.

just thought i'd throw that out there.

[PR3SSUR3]

Well like all cults and religions, the overlords prey on the gullible.

Which is not to say all those who sign up deserve their bankruptcy or pathetic deaths.

But cults and religions seem to want to interfere with and subvert the most important and precious thing in human existence: human nature.

This is very disturbing.

[psiren]

Scary stuff, doesn't surprise me tho. At least i'm too skint to interest them.:p

[Miss Olivia]

It doesn't suprise me at all.
People have been brainwashed, robbed, tortured, and killed in the name of religion since the beginning of humanity. And it's not simply Scientology, either. Look back at the causes of most wars, conflicts and strife. A difference of belief can be a terminal condition if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time...

[PR3SSUR3]

Bush and Blair still name "God" as their influence in important killing decisions.

Perhaps one day we'll get round to launching a War on Religion instead, if enough aetheists can muster up enough numbers and nuclear bombs.

[The STE]

there's nothing wrong with religion. It's the dumb fucks who use it as a reason for hurting others that's the problem

[PR3SSUR3]

I would say the persistent commitment to and worship of an illogical concept based on absolutely no facts is wrong - offensively wrong in its stupidity - and often leads to neglect of life through blind optimism of a better 'death'.

Thats the hardcore - the casual Christians among us just like to think they are saying and doing enough to be in with 'God' in the off chance that there might be a Heaven.

Religion is little more than fear - fear that if you do not subscribe to it there could be no more of your essence when you die.

[The STE]

if you think it's stupid, then that's fine for you, but talking like religious types are in any way inferior and calling for a war on religion is on par with the religious types who say people who are not of their religion are inferior

[PR3SSUR3]

Let's get the crux of any religion - a belief that a supernatural power has created everything and can reward or punish us. It has as much grounds to be talked about as Santa Claus.

A huge bandwagon, religion is for pathetic souls unable to accept or embrace their evolved existence and individual capabilities on earth.

We are one in Him, as He is one in us. He is one in you, and you are all of Him. You are all of His bread, as we are one in his wine. (etc).

What sense is this kind of preaching?

Most religious types are old and/or creepy - not to mention that a worrying percentage of those who convey The Lord's messages have been exposed as filthy paedophiles. And how come so many homosexuals work for The Church, when the act is denounced in the cornerstone of Christianity - The Bible?

So a load of invisible illogical happenings and promises are declared by a bunch of wierdos and hypocrites, to be lapped up by old ladies, the bereaved and that strange kid at school.

Common sense will always prevail over religion - none of it adds up whatsoever, therefore it remains an inferior existence to preoccupy oneself with magical idealistic fantasy you desperately want to believe is real as opposed to watching horror films and not giving that shit the time of day.

+

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
[B]Let's get the crux of any religion - a belief that a supernatural power has created everything and can reward or punish us. It has as much grounds to be talked about as Santa Claus.
You seem to be only talking about the Judeo-Christian religions, ignoring Buddhism, Deism, and others. And there are plenty of Christians that believe in evolution and the like


Most religious types are old and/or creepy - not to mention that a worrying percentage of those who convey The Lord's messages have been exposed as filthy paedophiles. And how come so many homosexuals work for The Church, when the act is denounced in the cornerstone of Christianity - The Bible?
Ignoring the questionable-at-best generalization about religious types being old/creepy, the homosexuality issue is not absolute throughout Christianity. There are entire denominations in Christianity (I was raised in one) that do not believe that homosexuality is a sin. I would question your "worrying percentage" comment, but any percentage above 0 is worrying enough.


So a load of invisible illogical happenings and promises are declared by a bunch of wierdos and hypocrites, to be lapped up by old ladies, the bereaved and that strange kid at school.
Again, generalizations. Not everybody who is Christian thinks the bible is literally true.

Common sense will always prevail over religion - none of it adds up whatsoever, therefore it remains an inferior existence to preoccupy oneself with magical idealistic fantasy you desperately want to believe is real as opposed to watching horror films and not giving that shit the time of day.
you're assuming that what some people (not discluding myself) think of as common sense will change someone's fundamental beliefs. It won't.


Look, you can believe whatever you want, but when you start thinking that your beliefs make you better than anybody else, ANYBODY else, then you're just like anybody of any religion that think that people who aren't of their religion are inferior. End of story.

[Haunted]

Pr33sur3,
You obviously don't understand what religion is at all. If you're basing religion as a whole purely from an anti Christian view then you're misrepresenting a billion others.

Also, as humans, we look to everything under the cosmos for comfort, and that totally includes so-called reason. We desire to understand how everything connects and how it works. The fact is, you can't prove or disprove anything...at all.

My physics professor (was a PhD of physics, mind) once told me during one of our conversations, "Any scientist worth his salt that tells you any of our laws and theories are set in stone is full of it. We honestly just don't know all of this stuff beyond a shadow of a doubt."

A war on religion...That very well may be the funniest pile of horse shit I've heard coming from someone in a long time. Sounds like you need to take a lesson from the ostrich. The point is, my budding fascist, is that you should never go to war, no matter what you think (and this goes for all and sundry) to enforce a point of view on someone else.

I'm not sure if you were joking or not, but having studied religion for the years I spent earning my BA, I didn't find it humorous. If I were Jewish, I'd probably be really pissed off.

By the way, there is no such thing as "supernatural." There is only nature.

[Miss Olivia]

Unfortunately, the bad in anything can and frequently will be brought out to overshadow the good, and that is the crux of the problem. There is not enough appreciation for our similarities, only conflict over our differences.
Tolerance is a terribly rare thing when comparing religions.

[PR3SSUR3]

There are not many professions that seem to attract as many paedophiles as working for The Church. There are a disproportionate number of paedophiles doing God's work, and The Catholic Church has a dubious record of dealing with them.

Kiddie fiddling - nature's alternative to dedicated celibacy?


http://www.answers.com/topic/roman-catholic-sex-abuse-cases


So there is no definitive version of any religion - in some you can be gay when you also cannot, in some we evolved from apes when we were also created in 6 days... it seems many want to shape their religion to suit themselves. And why not? Anything is possible in such mindsets - just go create your own, or modify an existing one.

I do not care about changing anybody's fundamental beliefs - but it is regrettably impossible to give much dignity to such a logically flawed system. I would say the learning about and understanding of things through evidence and experience is the most productive way of spending one's lifetime - if I did not think this was 'better', I would allocate a lot of this valuable time to religious theories instead. You do not need to 'believe' in a successful manuscript or how a tree works or why there is an eclipse - just do it, research it or watch it happen. It's all biomechanics and maths.

Of course you can 'prove' things - what a ridiculous statement. Yet, a common one from those who cannot handle finalities and certainties because they interfere with a belief system that everything must remain so mysterious and inconclusive, possibly because the scientists who make these discoveries also discover destructive things like nuclear bombs or unethical breakthroughs like stem cell research (don't tell me - there are religions where all that stuff is allowed too). Never let some mystical fantasy be interrupted by the results of years and years of dedicated technologically aided research.

If its generalisation that bothers you, let me direct you to The Oxford English Dictionary: human recognition of superhuman controlling power of a personal God or Gods entitled to obedience and worship. Granted, it also refers simply to a particular system of faith and worship, but when it all boils down to it people from various religions are conducting irrational rituals, propogating unsolid, unlikely, unproven myths and warning against non-compliance like sufferers from OCD must complete their daily tasks 'so everything will be alright'. What is the point - togetherness? Well-being? What changes are made to the world by faith in invisible, omnipotent deities apart from new routines and respect of 'good' rules that decency and common sense can provide in a far less authoritarian fashion and without suggesting we are 'wrong' and 'sinners' if we do not always follow them?

Well there is global war, for starters, and the aforementioned new concentration of child sex offenders in The Catholic Church at least.

I was kind of joking about the War on Religion, since so many people follow one to varying degress. However since you are suggesting I'm a Nazi, I'm changing it to a War on Hippies.


;)

[The STE]

see, I'm fine with that. Fuck hippies.


Note, however, that I said there is nothing wrong with RELIGION. It is the people that do horrible things I have a problem with. If someone came up to me and said "Hi, I'm a Scientologist", I wouldn't hold it against them. I mean, I'd think it was weird and random, but I wouldn't hold their religious beliefs against them

[PR3SSUR3]

No, but to the non-believer it breeds general contempt when the only real things we can see happening as a result of religion are bloody wars and convenient sadistic sexual assaults.

Bah! I misspelled degrees.

[The STE]

but those are the actions of people who are using religion to justify their misdeeds. That isn't the religion

[PR3SSUR3]

It isn't the Catholic religion to molest choirboys, but that such a proportion of priests have been at it suggests The Pope's understudies are non too reliable to say the least. Most damagingly, The Catholic Church have attempted to cover up such acts in the past. I'm sure no splinter of the Catholic Faith will condone child rape, but that this despicable act has occured under such hallowed circumstances time and time again makes one wonder about the dedication and sincerity of its teachers. So many bad apples in one basket?

Islam doesn't encourage murder, but the militants use their own interpretation of The Qur'an to justify it.

If the 'good' followers of these religions produced more than generally uptight and stuffy values and rituals and complaints to TV stations about violence and porn, the 'bad' side might be a little easier to stomach - but not much.

[Haunted]

Not all fascists are Nazis.

You mentioned experience as a reasonable way to come to a conclusion. How can you discount the experience of, say, a Hindu woman at the temple to Kali in Dakinswar India versus the experience of playing golf on the moon? To the woman in the temple, she'd probably say her experience is more profound.

Another sort of example... We can't actually see electrons. We know that they're there because they emit the ever famous electron cloud. So if we can't actually see them, how do we know that they're similar to the little red ball represented in the atomic model. What if they're actually little old British men on motor scooters driving really really really fast. It's absurd, but so is calling me a hippy.

You keep making references to varying Christian problems and crimes. My guess is that's because you don't actually know shit about religion. Don't give me the Oxford Dictionary definition of religion. That's retarded. They also don't know shit about religion. Religion is not something that is easily defined because it's different for every person that holds a system of personal beliefs.

The ostrich reference... Bury you head in the sand until you come across a topic you can rationally discuss.

[PR3SSUR3]

Without getting too deeply scientific or religious (though we can if you want), you are suggesting that because it cannot be proved than electrons are not in fact little men on scooters then religion still has some validity.

I have to agree that if electrons are actually these speeding men, your religious theories will indeed have more clout as the whole logic system collapses.

However not only are new discoveries, facts, links and causes unveiled in every new science journal (keep an eye out for those further electron understandings), you seem to think that because life still holds some mysteries then science and biology cannot possibly provide all the answers and there is room for speculative fantasy.

The only thing new in religion is The DaVinci Code, and I can't stand Tom Hanks.

I'm sure the woman in India did enjoy herself, but what use is this to anyone but her? What does it produce, and what would happen if she did not do it?

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
It isn't the Catholic religion to molest choirboys, but that such a proportion of priests have been at it suggests The Pope's understudies are non too reliable to say the least. Most damagingly, The Catholic Church have attempted to cover up such acts in the past. I'm sure no splinter of the Catholic Faith will condone child rape, but that this despicable act has occured under such hallowed circumstances time and time again makes one wonder about the dedication and sincerity of its teachers. So many bad apples in one basket?

Islam doesn't encourage murder, but the militants use their own interpretation of The Qur'an to justify it.

If the 'good' followers of these religions produced more than generally uptight and stuffy values and rituals and complaints to TV stations about violence and porn, the 'bad' side might be a little easier to stomach - but not much.

You're still focusing on the negative portion of the people following the religion instead of the religion its self. My argument is simple: RELIGION is not bad. That people who follow particular religions have done terrible things does nothing to disprove that. All it does is show that people do bad things. The actions of those people are not indicitive of the core beliefs of the religion.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Without getting too deeply scientific or religious (though we can if you want), you are suggesting that because it cannot be proved than electrons are not in fact little men on scooters then religion still has some validity.

I have to agree that if electrons are actually these speeding men, your religious theories will indeed have more clout as the whole logic system collapses.

However not only are new discoveries, facts, links and causes unveiled in every new science journal (keep an eye out for those further electron understandings), you seem to think that because life still holds some mysteries then science and biology cannot possibly provide all the answers and there is room for speculative fantasy.

The only thing new in religion is The DaVinci Code, and I can't stand Tom Hanks.

I'm sure the woman in India did enjoy herself, but what use is this to anyone but her? What does it produce, and what would happen if she did not do it?


I'll give you the candy bar of your choosing if you keep that book the fuck out of this discussion

[PR3SSUR3]

But religion needs people in order for it to exist, and the practice of its preachers is always going to affect perception of the product. The twisted irony of murder and abuse revelations inside systems where peace and harmony is so heavily championed is jarring, and medical and scientific advances are rapidly putting paid to any outdated theories of divine activity. Psuedoscience on the bigger questions is becoming more logical and conclusive.

Of course this does not mean all followers of all religions are idiots - stupid may even be too harsh a word - but they have been misguided into pursuing a nonexistent and irrelivant reality. Some 'turn' to religion, some are born into it, some pick it up as a fashion accessory trying to become all mysterious and give themselves an 'angle'. None achieve anything they could not achieve without this blind faith or go to a Heaven or Hell (prove otherwise, and I'll show you an electron).

If you're saying there is nothing wrong in the theory of reincarnation, that a superhuman God exists or that one can achieve spiritual enlightenment through intense introspection then fair enough - but as I've said there are a lot of rotten apples in the religion basket, enough to decide the whole concept of religious faith is much more bother that it is worth.

[The STE]

you act as though there are no non-religious assholes. You keep bringing in the actions of a portion (maybe the majority, maybe not) of the followers of certain religions as an indication of the religion its self. That is just faulty logic.

And I'm not going to argue the whole existence/nonexistence thing. Not because I agree, I don't, but because there is no evidence to support either side. I will simply say that lack of proof is not proof of a lack and then I shall leave it be and suggest that we not make the discussion so petty in the future.

[PR3SSUR3]

I don't consider anything petty about this discussion, and nobody is saying there are no non-religious degenerates.

My stance is that spiritual and divine faith is an ideology borne from darker, more ignorant times when science was undeveloped and humans more easily led through through fear and tyranny.

Torture and capital punishment, female circumcision with razor blades, human sacrifices, personality-draining hiveminded gatherings, abstinence from the finer things in life, enforced guilt over natural behaviour and acts, obsessive compulsive behaviour upon fear of dire consequences, neglect of everyday life in favour of pandering to imaginary things, mutated interpretations convincing sadists and perverts to break the law... all carried out in the name of religion and 'beliefs'.

It ain't healthy, brothers and sisters.

Why do I need evidence to prove there is not a God? You need evidence to prove it - unless you consider yourself outside of the logical mindset of scientific laws and exist primarily within your own belief system. Supergood if you do, but contrary to your statement we can prove our theories of evolution with rock hard evidence, so that is most Christians hung out to dry (until of course they start moving the goalposts to accomodate irrefutable scientific discoveries and start talking about different interpretations of The Bible etc etc yawn).

When you die, you die - once you accept it you can undoubtedly make more of your life. And if your alternative beliefs are as sure and strong as many claim they are, you'll have no problem with a young internet whippersnapper like me trying to tell you otherwise - it's just another point of view.

Peace
:cool: :cool: :cool:

[Haunted]

I don't have a "religion" per se, but a set of personal spiritual beliefs (ha ha kiss my butt). So, you can shit all over them if you'd like, but I'm not shitting all over science, because I don't think the two are really that different.

I'm not required to feel guilt, I celebrate my clit, I don't commit human sacrifices.

I'm curious as to where you gleaned your information concerning religion. It seems part Roman Catholic history and part uneducated assumption. Here's a thought. Why don't you leave the discussion of religion to religious scholars (ahem, myself, because I studied it for seven years at uni and will probably get my PhD on the subject once I save up the money) and quit showing the ignorance of layman (ahem- yourself) who doesn't know jack shit about the subject.

I don't mind atheism. My brother's an atheist. However, I can't stand it when people try to engage others or make comments on a subject they know absolutely nothing about at all...period.

[_____V_____]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3

My stance is that spiritual and divine faith is an ideology borne from darker, more ignorant times when science was undeveloped and humans more easily led through through fear and tyranny.

Torture and capital punishment, female circumcision with razor blades, human sacrifices, personality-draining hiveminded gatherings, abstinence from the finer things in life, enforced guilt over natural behaviour and acts, obsessive compulsive behaviour upon fear of dire consequences, neglect of everyday life in favour of pandering to imaginary things, mutated interpretations convincing sadists and perverts to break the law... all carried out in the name of religion and 'beliefs'.

When you die, you die - once you accept it you can undoubtedly make more of your life. And if your alternative beliefs are as sure and strong as many claim they are, you'll have no problem with a young internet whippersnapper like me trying to tell you otherwise - it's just another point of view.


There is a fine line between religion and faith. More so, with blind faith. Hence the two words are different. If anyone knows their history correctly (putting the religious texts aside), primitive man who lived in caves in the jungle used to worship fire, heavenly bodies like stars and planets, and the animals and trees. That was borne out of fear of these objects. When civilisation and society developed, the leaders who catered to the masses gave the concept of religion so that the life of a human would be disciplined. That was religion's first importance, discipline.

But with society, came exploitation. The so-called leaders and high priests who were considered the religious and spiritual leaders, used the society's belief in religion to their own selfish advantages. Thus were borne superstitions. And then the concept of evil came in. The fear of doing wrong stuff was actually drilled into the society by these leaders, who proclaimed to banish the evils out, in return for money, power and respect. Not like they didnt have it before, but because they could keep it maintained through generations. That is what perpetrated into religion. The so-called "caterings" to the masses by these chosen few.

I have read the Bible, Quran, Gita, the Vedas & Granth Sahib. Nowhere does Jesus or Mohammed or Krishna or Guru Nanak say that "to find your own true self (which is equivalent to finding God), make a different religion." But still, the society in which we live today has a plethora of religions, and not 1 universal religion which everyone in this world follow. Krishna never asked the people to start Hinduism, Mohammed didnt ask em to start Islam etc.

But throughout generations, people with vested interests started making their own deductions from these teachings, and thrust them as new religious rules into the society. Nowhere in the Gita or the Vedas is written, "a Hindu married woman should be burnt alive on her husband's pyre if he dies." But still, the system of Sati was a prevalent part of Hinduism till the 19th century.

A lot of similar beliefs have succeeded in sharply dividing the people living in the society. But the same people themselves have slowly but surely climbed the barriers of the past and broken through these walls, and have brought civilised man to the doorstep of a revolutionised religion, ergo, the religion which was started at the beginning, with self-development and self-discipline as its foundation-stones.

Religion is a way of disciplining oneself. The belief in a Supreme Power gives an individual a sort of self-control over oneself, and propagates self-development and self-discipline. Without it, we wouldnt have a society, people wont be called civilised, man would have probably returned to the jungle by now. The power of an individual's conscience is the biggest power of the world. In the eastern countries it is referred to as "the voice of God".

The existence of the Lord may be a debatable question, but the existence of the self is not. Self-pride, self-achievement, and self-development are paths towards contentment and totality. If one achieves those, then thats good enuff.

My two cents in.

(Hopefully I didnt offend anyone, if I did, I apologise)

[PR3SSUR3]

If one man can attain discipline, self-control and self-development without needing to pander to an imagined higher force, then the next man (or woman) can too. It's not my religion, it's just my drive and purpose - nobody pulls my strings and I have absoultely nothing to prove to anybody or 'thing'.

I'm sure we did worship animals, trees and fire - without them, we could not exist. Even primitive man knew a good thing when he saw it.

If we needed belief in a superhuman to form a society in the first place (which I am sure we did not, but the crafty ones knew how to get attention and trick others to fall into line - their line, not the only possible one), we certainly do not need it now we are better developed and informed.

Society would not collapse without religion. If it did, then so be it - I would not want to be part of a society that could only exist under such a ridiculous and irrelevant pretence anyway.

Do your facts on religious practice combined with your theories of insubstantial beliefs make you qualified to suggest I stop posting my thoughts about religion, Haunted? Is this why you do not discuss films, because you are not educated in that field?

Doesn't sound very spiritual to me - surely we're all free to explore and discuss at will.

[Haunted]

Whoa...I discuss films. That's why I'm here. This is the general forum. We can talk about anything we like.

In truth, I'm a bit afraid of my approach to discussing films. I like to read other people's thoughts. I think I would be very very boring. I discuss things in a manner of: In Dawn of the Dead, what was the symbolism of the pregnancy in a dead world? Was it a new hope for the reformation of life or did it symbolize the true death of human beings as a whole?

Nobody wants to talk about that shit. Here's something else I might ask: When you compare Dracula the book, versus Dracula the original movie with Bela Lugosi, with Bram Stoker's Dracula, we see a progression of the Byronic vampiric theme that Stoker hinted at in his novel (pulling from The Vampyre by John Polidori, which was a book featuring Lord Byron as a Vampire) where as in Dracula with Lugosi, Dracula is not "handsome," yet charismatic. In the Copala film, he alternates from hideous to strikingly handsome. Is this a reflection of Hollywood's idealism of beauty or were they trying to recapture the Byronic antihero more clearly?

Would you really be interested in answering a question like that?

I absolutely adore horror films you unmuzzled plume-plucked fustilarian. I adore anything horror related. I always have. That's why I enjoy reading other people's opions on films, but my own insecurities prevent me from jotting my own thoughts out of fear of boring you all to death. Besides that, many people here, including yourself, don't take kindly to beind disagreed with about films.

I'm disagreeing with you on this topic because the discussing of my religion has been a large part of my academic adult life, and I feel that you're comments are not based on any fact or learning whatever. You're making unclear and muttled assumptions, just like the one about me not liking horror films.

The thing is, I question your statements and where you've come up with them. To my recollection, I haven't really made assumptions about your character. If you are truly as intellectual as you are trying to have us assume, you would kindly do me the same favor. Okay... so the ostrich comment was a bit much.

The two comments that you've made thus far, one, about me being a "hippy" and two, about me not liking or watching horror films are completely and totally untrue and frankly used as a last ditch effort on your part.

As much as I would like to continue discussion religion, I'm leaving this topic alone. You can continue to judge and assume anything and everything about whomever and whatever you like, because you're going to do it anyway. Before you go off on a tagent about how I'm admitting defeat or some piece of shit logic like that, I have to again, enlighten you to your erroneous presumption. The truth is this: I really really don't want Zwoti to kick me in the face.

[Soloman Kane]

I'am on my way out the door at work but I had to grab in on this discussion. The reason that the movie dracula & the book are so very different is that there's a secondary source altogether that people miss. Thats the play Dracula which actually starred Bela right before the movies came out. The play is pretty interesting compared with the movie infact. Sexuality of the play is still very low key by comparison to today's fair. The evolution of the vampire happened over a long period of time infact. Hats off to Psiren who knows more about vampires then me. :D
Don't get me started on religion. The short version is this. Faith is a powerful personal belief tool & should be respected. Religion in general is a way of controlling the masses. However with that being said we seem to have forgotten the freedom of religion & respect for the right of others to worship as they please. I try to mind my own business with other people's beliefs but theres a fine line between having a religious belief & trying to convert another to your belief system. Jesus, I've got to go. :D

[_____V_____]

Originally posted by Haunted
In Dawn of the Dead, what was the symbolism of the pregnancy in a dead world? Was it a new hope for the reformation of life or did it symbolize the true death of human beings as a whole?

Nobody wants to talk about that shit. Here's something else I might ask: When you compare Dracula the book, versus Dracula the original movie with Bela Lugosi, with Bram Stoker's Dracula, we see a progression of the Byronic vampiric theme that Stoker hinted at in his novel (pulling from The Vampyre by John Polidori, which was a book featuring Lord Byron as a Vampire) where as in Dracula with Lugosi, Dracula is not "handsome," yet charismatic. In the Copala film, he alternates from hideous to strikingly handsome. Is this a reflection of Hollywood's idealism of beauty or were they trying to recapture the Byronic antihero more clearly?

- Dawn of the Dead :- the pregnancy and the birth were shown as two diametrically opposite facets of the same whole. Whereas the pregnancy rekindled hope, the birth did not. The birth actually squashed any kind of hopes which had arisen before. So the answer is the second part of your question. :)

- Dracula :- Stoker basically visualised his anti-hero as an all-powerful, savage leech who had only one motive in mind, to be an agnostic sadist who wanted to make the world his slave. The name "Dracula" attracted Stoker from a book he read on the history of Moldovia and Walachia, in which Dracula meant "devil" in the walachian language. His original choice of name was "Count Wampyr" which he changed later to Count Dracula by "borrowing" the name.

Many people think that Vlad Tepes (the Impaler) was Stoker's role model, but nope. Stoker didnt know much about Vlad Tepes either. This original Vlad Dracula (so called because he hailed from a race who followed the order of the dragon, which was called "dracul" in native language) was NOT either a count, nor a vampire.

The anti-hero elements in Lugosi's depiction and in Coppola's 90s version had a more colorful approach to them. If read carefully, Stoker's Dracula is actually an aged old man. That certainly doesnt fit with the depiction in the movies. Those depictions follow the more colorful myths sorrounding the whole vampire history, about them being remarkably handsome, having qualities which made their victims powerless, mind-boggling hypnotic powers, and two sharp canine teeth. Comparative analysis suggests that Stoker's Dracula, if depicted exactly page by page, would make an interesting movie, but it would not have the colorful effect which the myth of the vampire brings with it. Coppola only modernised the Lugosi version. Stoker's depiction of the Dracula and its story, is a different channel altogether.

If there wasnt Stoker's novel to follow, Dracula would have disappeared into the pages of history as just another 14th-15th century entry. The novel forms the basis of the age-old tale of good vs evil, and Dracula is depicted as the strongest possible source of evil yet in this world. The anti-hero of Stoker was never meant to be a handsome attractive fellow, rather an old-man who needed blood to survive, and in the exact words of Stoker, "and there he lay as a bloated filthy leech filled with blood" which suggests that he didnt look any lovelier when he was full of blood.

The biggest sufferers out of all this were the bats. (poor creatures!) While Nosferatu (1922) didnt make any reference to them (it was based primarily on rats), Lugosi's 1931 version brought them as the aide to the Prince of Darkness. Added to that the fact that desmodus rotundus (the vampire bat) does exist in some countries which sucks blood of cattle for its survival. Lugosi's 1931 version brought with it into the twentieth century, the most memorable and lasting images of Count Dracula (including the bats), images that survive to this very day.


whew...who says you cannot discuss movies, H? :D

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
I don't consider anything petty about this discussion, and nobody is saying there are no non-religious degenerates.

My stance is that spiritual and divine faith is an ideology borne from darker, more ignorant times when science was undeveloped and humans more easily led through through fear and tyranny.

Torture and capital punishment, female circumcision with razor blades, human sacrifices, personality-draining hiveminded gatherings, abstinence from the finer things in life, enforced guilt over natural behaviour and acts, obsessive compulsive behaviour upon fear of dire consequences, neglect of everyday life in favour of pandering to imaginary things, mutated interpretations convincing sadists and perverts to break the law... all carried out in the name of religion and 'beliefs'.

It ain't healthy, brothers and sisters.

Why do I need evidence to prove there is not a God? You need evidence to prove it - unless you consider yourself outside of the logical mindset of scientific laws and exist primarily within your own belief system. Supergood if you do, but contrary to your statement we can prove our theories of evolution with rock hard evidence, so that is most Christians hung out to dry (until of course they start moving the goalposts to accomodate irrefutable scientific discoveries and start talking about different interpretations of The Bible etc etc yawn).

When you die, you die - once you accept it you can undoubtedly make more of your life. And if your alternative beliefs are as sure and strong as many claim they are, you'll have no problem with a young internet whippersnapper like me trying to tell you otherwise - it's just another point of view.

Peace
:cool: :cool: :cool:

Oh...my...god...have you even read my responses? You keep bringing in the actions of people as an indication of the religion, when that's not how it works. "Oh, but there's torture and mu-" NO. Those are the actions of people who either think they are doing what their religion says they should or just using the religion as an excuse to control people through fear and commit atrocities. Bad? Of course. Indicitive of the actual religion? No. How many times am I going to have to say it?


Why do I need evidence to prove there is not a God? You need evidence to prove it - unless you consider yourself outside of the logical mindset of scientific laws and exist primarily within your own belief system. Supergood if you do, but contrary to your statement we can prove our theories of evolution with rock hard evidence, so that is most Christians hung out to dry (until of course they start moving the goalposts to accomodate irrefutable scientific discoveries and start talking about different interpretations of The Bible etc etc yawn).
There is no proof God exists. There is no proof that he doesn't exist. Neither side can prove themselves right. It works both ways, Pr3ssur3. If you do not have evidence to back up a claim you are making then you need to leave it out of the discussion. Period. If YOU are the one bringing the existence of God, or lack thereof, into the discussion, then it is on YOU to prove it. You'll notice I haven't once said that God is real or that there is an afterlife or anything. Why? Because there's no evidence on EITHER side of the argument, so it would just boil down to "prove it!" "no, YOU prove it!", and that's just petty squabbling.


EDIT: And you're also still using a stance on Christianity-related religions and expanding it to religion as a whole, which is insanely ignorant.

[_____V_____]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
If one man can attain discipline, self-control and self-development without needing to pander to an imagined higher force, then the next man (or woman) can too. It's not my religion, it's just my drive and purpose - nobody pulls my strings and I have absoultely nothing to prove to anybody or 'thing'.

I'm sure we did worship animals, trees and fire - without them, we could not exist. Even primitive man knew a good thing when he saw it.

If we needed belief in a superhuman to form a society in the first place (which I am sure we did not, but the crafty ones knew how to get attention and trick others to fall into line - their line, not the only possible one), we certainly do not need it now we are better developed and informed.

Society would not collapse without religion. If it did, then so be it - I would not want to be part of a society that could only exist under such a ridiculous and irrelevant pretence anyway.


You missed the point, entirely. Religion is totally different then what the high priests have made it out of, through the centuries. Faith is in the life you live, the hope you have, the goals you set, and how you achieve em. Religion is the discipline facet of your life which you have been unconsciously following to follow faith. Religion is not God, it is not following God, religion is following oneself, and being true to oneself. Without THAT discipline in your life, you CANNOT have faith.

An Atheist also follows a religion. Yes, I know this may sound funny, but an atheist actually follows his heart, and what he thinks is right. That my friend, is in itself, following something, which makes even the hardened atheists followers. Sure, they proclaim they dont follow God, but they follow their hearts and their purposes in life. That is their religion, however blind they may be to it. The discipline of one's life for one's goals and for their attainment.

Dont believe in God. I say just follow your heart. Be human, and practise humanity. Feel empathy for your fellow humans. Humanity is also a religion in itself, I dare say, the highest religion in the world, above Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, above anything else.

[PR3SSUR3]

Now perhaps we can get down to the nitty gritty.

Faith, or the reliance or trust in oneself, is natural and is refined with upbringing. Taking religion as its meaning of a system of faith and worship - even removing the familiar supernatural elements entirely for a moment - does not mean one should be labelled 'religious' or 'following a religion' simply because one can operate successfully from day to day and efficiently pursue love and ambition. The 'faith' is individuality and survival instinct, the 'religion' that is borne from this daily repetition is merely straightforward common sense - to not persist with aims and purpose is to stay still, or regress. Humanity is the culmination of these things, plus compassion, and it is also not a 'religion' - to practice social relations and act on instincts while supressing others are traits we have learned over millions of years.

So your broadening of the term religion is seeping into biology, science and mathematics and being used somewhat incorrectly.

Incidentally I would not consider myself to be an 'atheist', either. Must I 'become' a type of person for not believing in the fanciful concept of a God or Gods? I think not - I'll leave it to the nutters to create their own labels for their strange lifestyles, though they're perfectly entitled to call me an atheist or anything else from the other side of the fence.

STE: the religions that are producing so many negative people commiting so many negative acts are obviously severely flawed, or this would not be happening. Even if those people are not remotely interested in the religion itself and only wish to exploit it in order to gain control of others, the religion cannot remain blameless as its pompous and superior stance is just asking for exploitation and its dangerous persuasive power to be used for ill gains. If a film or book caused so much trouble it would be shut down or banned as a serious threat. Come to think of it, that's just what they should do with The Bible, The Qur'an, The Mahabharata, and The Granth Sahib and definately The DaVinci Code (whoops apocalypse!). Not all religions are tainted with the bad reputations of their preachers (Catholics) and followers (Islam), but it goes to show they can be all open to criminal misuse once they are given significance.

I guess you're also clinging on to the 'you can't prove God does not exist' angle. I can prove that the text in The Bible about when and how the earth and its creatures were created is a load of nonsense (I don't actually own any fossils, but there are plenty about), and since this tome is The Man's bestseller one would think it to accurately interpret his work. Not looking good for The Jewish or Christian God then, unless someone made some incredibly huge typos of course, which is possible ("Six BILLENIA!? I thought you said six DAYS!!". Maybe he meant six cosmic days?).

Of course I'm concentrating on the religion I am most familiar with - just like I'll concentrate on horror films instead of Westerns yet discuss films in general. It's hardly ignorant. Fundamentally, the core principles of loyalty, respect and commitment are all the the same, whatever the individual rules of each religion.

A shame Haunted has left the conversation, perhaps to prepare some more fascinating cinematic allergories she believes far too deep for the rest of us to have to put up with. Yet nobody called her a hippy or non-watcher of horror films. Come on Haunted, we can all go through the old film school/media course notebooks and furrow our worthless brows a little - so let's hear your thoughts.

[Haunted]

Actually Stoker made a whole witches brew of vampiric lore to created the character, Dracula. I think his main source was probably from Romania and was probably not Vlad Tsepes himself. I read, while doing a research paper on Lord Byron that Polidori's, "The Vampyre" did play a key role in the formation of Dracula.

However, as ___V___ stated, he was not lovely in the books. It was his charisma...more of a magical/other worldly power than social that drew the likes of Lucy and Mina. In the Romanian myths vampires had foul breath, big bushy eyebrows, thick red lips, disgusting dirty finger nails, dry, thin, and whispy hair. Stoker captured that with his character.

Where we really start to see Polidori's Byronic vampires is in the likes of Anne Rice's novels (she bores the piss out of me). I have to admit that I borrow from that style as well. Shit, who doesn't anymore?

If you haven't read Polidori's novella and you like vampires, read it. It's sort of boring, but it's worth it for the history of vampire stories. Also, check out Varney the Vampire. (I know that was made into a play, but was it ever made into a movie)?

Thanks for answering my questions guys. :D You've officially relieved some of my shyness.:D

Sorry about what happened to your thread, S.:( The Scientology topic was really interesting, but it just ran over an skunk so we had to change the subject.

[Miss Olivia]

Those damn skunks.
At least the air smells way better in here, now.
The little woodland creatures are daring to poke their heads out of their holes as we speak....
It's a beautiful day, guys:)

[Elvis_Christ]

Religious Vomit

All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions make me sick
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
They all claim that they have the truth
That'll set you free
Just give 'em all your money and they'll set you free
Free for a fee

They all claim that they have 'the Answer'
When they don't even know the Question
They're just a bunch of liars
They just want your money
They just want your consciousness

All religions suck
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
All religions make me wanna BLEAH

They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me ILL

http://www.riotfest2005.com/images/dead_kennedys.jpg

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Now perhaps we can get down to the nitty gritty.

Faith, or the reliance or trust in oneself, is natural and is refined with upbringing. Taking religion as its meaning of a system of faith and worship - even removing the familiar supernatural elements entirely for a moment - does not mean one should be labelled 'religious' or 'following a religion' simply because one can operate successfully from day to day and efficiently pursue love and ambition. The 'faith' is individuality and survival instinct, the 'religion' that is borne from this daily repetition is merely straightforward common sense - to not persist with aims and purpose is to stay still, or regress. Humanity is the culmination of these things, plus compassion, and it is also not a 'religion' - to practice social relations and act on instincts while supressing others are traits we have learned over millions of years.

So your broadening of the term religion is seeping into biology, science and mathematics and being used somewhat incorrectly.

Incidentally I would not consider myself to be an 'atheist', either. Must I 'become' a type of person for not believing in the fanciful concept of a God or Gods? I think not - I'll leave it to the nutters to create their own labels for their strange lifestyles, though they're perfectly entitled to call me an atheist or anything else from the other side of the fence.

STE: the religions that are producing so many negative people commiting so many negative acts are obviously severely flawed, or this would not be happening. Even if those people are not remotely interested in the religion itself and only wish to exploit it in order to gain control of others, the religion cannot remain blameless as its pompous and superior stance is just asking for exploitation and its dangerous persuasive power to be used for ill gains. If a film or book caused so much trouble it would be shut down or banned as a serious threat. Come to think of it, that's just what they should do with The Bible, The Qur'an, The Mahabharata, and The Granth Sahib and definately The DaVinci Code (whoops apocalypse!). Not all religions are tainted with the bad reputations of their preachers (Catholics) and followers (Islam), but it goes to show they can be all open to criminal misuse once they are given significance.

I guess you're also clinging on to the 'you can't prove God does not exist' angle. I can prove that the text in The Bible about when and how the earth and its creatures were created is a load of nonsense (I don't actually own any fossils, but there are plenty about), and since this tome is The Man's bestseller one would think it to accurately interpret his work. Not looking good for The Jewish or Christian God then, unless someone made some incredibly huge typos of course, which is possible ("Six BILLENIA!? I thought you said six DAYS!!". Maybe he meant six cosmic days?).

Of course I'm concentrating on the religion I am most familiar with - just like I'll concentrate on horror films instead of Westerns yet discuss films in general. It's hardly ignorant. Fundamentally, the core principles of loyalty, respect and commitment are all the the same, whatever the individual rules of each religion.

A shame Haunted has left the conversation, perhaps to prepare some more fascinating cinematic allergories she believes far too deep for the rest of us to have to put up with. Yet nobody called her a hippy or non-watcher of horror films. Come on Haunted, we can all go through the old film school/media course notebooks and furrow our worthless brows a little - so let's hear your thoughts.

Again, you're taking the bible literally. Not even everybody who believes in the bible does that. And I'm not 'clinging' to anything. I'm stating a fact: that there is no proof of something means just that: no proof. Not that it doesn't exist, just that there is no proof. And since there's no proof on EITHER side, it's pointless to bring it up. Look, if some religious nut came in here 'tarding the board up about how we should all convert (wouldn't be the first time), I'd be making the same point against them: no proof, so it's useless to bring it up.

And the fact that people use religion to commit atrocities only proves that PEOPLE are flawed. Example: Islamic religion says that if so much as a tree dies for your cause then it's not a true holy war. Yet, here's a bunch of nuts flying various airbourne vehicles into buildings in the name of Islam. Now, in what way is that Islam's fault? It isn't. It's the people's fault, NOTHING else's. The people who do these things are terrible people who would kill anyways, just under the guise of something else.

[monalisa]

Originally posted by The STE
Fuck hippies.



Will ya??? I'm not a hippie, but I used to see a lot of Grateful Dead concerts (but I've always had a full time job and I bathe daily). Hehe, just kidding Sam! HUMOR is a good thing, even if we don't share the same sense of humor!!!!!

Lighten up people!

And yes, I am deliberately going back to a less serious post because frankly, you're all making my brain hurt. And yes, I know that's my problem. blah blah blah....

[Elvis_Christ]

Originally posted by monalisa
I'm not a hippie

http://bratboyschool.com/bulletin/Pinocchio.gif

[Dante'sInferno]

Originally posted by Elvis_Christ
http://bratboyschool.com/bulletin/Pinocchio.gif I guess i'm a new generation hippie...or something.:confused:









:D ,hehehehehe

[monalisa]

Originally posted by Elvis_Christ
http://bratboyschool.com/bulletin/Pinocchio.gif

Now, if I could have a toy that did that, minus the cricket and splinters, I'd be set!!!! :D

[PR3SSUR3]

Again, you're taking the bible literally. Not even everybody who believes in the bible does that. And I'm not 'clinging' to anything. I'm stating a fact: that there is no proof of something means just that: no proof. Not that it doesn't exist, just that there is no proof. And since there's no proof on EITHER side, it's pointless to bring it up. Look, if some religious nut came in here 'tarding the board up about how we should all convert (wouldn't be the first time), I'd be making the same point against them: no proof, so it's useless to bring it up.

And the fact that people use religion to commit atrocities only proves that PEOPLE are flawed. Example: Islamic religion says that if so much as a tree dies for your cause then it's not a true holy war. Yet, here's a bunch of nuts flying various airbourne vehicles into buildings in the name of Islam. Now, in what way is that Islam's fault? It isn't. It's the people's fault, NOTHING else's. The people who do these things are terrible people who would kill anyways, just under the guise of something else

I've already given you an angle on all of these elements.

I cannot possibly cover the ins and outs of every single person's ideal version of a religion, but you highlight yet another flimsy aspect to it when it comes to people choosing which bits of an order they will not subscribe to or convince themselves not to understand because they are difficult or do not fit in with their way of life. Yet religion is supposed to be a way of life - if you're going to doctor the doctrines to suit, the power of the principles is weakened and lost. So not taking The Bible literally is very convenient indeed, and quite self serving - God will be turning in his massive grave upon hearing about all these half-hearted children of his 'kind of' listening to him, filtering bits out. I would prefer God's hatred to his indifference, and I'm betting he'd really prefer the same the other way around - at least He'd know where He stood. God set his commandments in stone - things do not come much more literal or specific than that. 'The Lord Works In Mysterious Ways," they say... a statement as meaningful as 'The Dog Ate My Homework'.

A preacher comes up to a paleontologist with news of a 'thing'. The paleontologist asks him to prove it. "Er...no," he says, "you must prove I have not got it!". "But," the paleontologist reples, "why must I have the responsibility to prove your non-'thing'? Can you bring it to me and show me it?". The preacher looks worried. "Tell you what," the paleontologist concludes, "I've just done it - there, it has no validity, it is as insubstantial as an idea, it does not exist. I laugh at the absurdity of your 'thing'! Back to the drawingboard!". As the man walks away, the preacher persists in shouting after him; "But... but you proved nothing!" "Whatever you say," the man replies, tossing him a fossil, "...have a nice day!".

I've already given you reasons why religion is to blame for world atrocities in my previous post. If we are to consider in the case of Islam that Muhammad decided its followers must surrender to the will of Allah, this placed an enormous and growing ball of power at the feet of its subsequent preachers. No wonder such a collosal, and dangerously repressive ideology is being abused by nutters who know how to talk the talk.

Religion does not create itself. It is created, embraced, transformed, exploited and spat out by people. The concept is unnecessary and a bane on modern human life.

[Haunted]

Originally posted by monalisa
Will ya??? I'm not a hippie, but I used to see a lot of Grateful Dead concerts (but I've always had a full time job and I bathe daily). Hehe, just kidding Sam! HUMOR is a good thing, even if we don't share the same sense of humor!!!!!

Lighten up people!

And yes, I am deliberately going back to a less serious post because frankly, you're all making my brain hurt. And yes, I know that's my problem. blah blah blah....

I too bathe and shave my legs, arm pits, etc. I wear Degree Ultra Clear Pure Satin Deoderant, and sometimes a light perfume. (I like to smell nice.:p ) I might also go so far as to wear a little mascara and lip gloss.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not prissy, but I do celebrate womanhood. It comes with being a modern Priestess of the Goddess. (There's pie in your eye for all the naysayers and bullshit spewers! My spirituality affects me and me alone... The Goddess doesn't want my money, other people to follow Her, or any other such stupid material crap. She just wants me to keep everything in perspective and love myself as much as She loves me, so the rest of you jokers can bugger off)!

Look, I honestly have a major problem with censorship. So, you're free to think and say what you like whether you can back up your claims or not, which a few of you haven't been able to do so.

Here's the twist. Many of you have claimed that certain religious groups have demanded the power to think for you. In many ways, and in many traditions, you couldn't be more correct. As a matter of fact, the topic of this thread was about that subject to begin with, right?

The thing is, though, I see you as allowing either science (which is a sort of religion itself if you get down to brass tacks of what religion really is...that being an explanation of how things work, why, and where we fit in with all of this) or you allow the cynicism of pop culture make those dicisions for you (i.e., It is radically uncool to have any other paradigm than nihilism). It's all the same.

[Zero]

i am personally offended by the idea that man descended from monkeys - that's not evolution, its devolution.

we monkeys hang out in trees, eat, sleep and screw around - - - its you stupid humans who pollute, kills, and generally screw everything up.

Monkeys of the world UNITE!

[_____V_____]

Yes!

**applauding our leader Zero**

http://www.webdeveloper.com/animations/bnifiles/monkey.gif


Wait...why am I applauding? :confused:

http://bits.webhs.org/blog/monkey.gif



:D

[Jacob Singer]

Originally posted by ItsAlive75
I can't get past the title screen.


Same here....this bloody machine

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
I've already given you an angle on all of these elements.

I cannot possibly cover the ins and outs of every single person's ideal version of a religion, but you highlight yet another flimsy aspect to it when it comes to people choosing which bits of an order they will not subscribe to or convince themselves not to understand because they are difficult or do not fit in with their way of life. Yet religion is supposed to be a way of life - if you're going to doctor the doctrines to suit, the power of the principles is weakened and lost. So not taking The Bible literally is very convenient indeed, and quite self serving - God will be turning in his massive grave upon hearing about all these half-hearted children of his 'kind of' listening to him, filtering bits out. I would prefer God's hatred to his indifference, and I'm betting he'd really prefer the same the other way around - at least He'd know where He stood. God set his commandments in stone - things do not come much more literal or specific than that. 'The Lord Works In Mysterious Ways," they say... a statement as meaningful as 'The Dog Ate My Homework'.

A preacher comes up to a paleontologist with news of a 'thing'. The paleontologist asks him to prove it. "Er...no," he says, "you must prove I have not got it!". "But," the paleontologist reples, "why must I have the responsibility to prove your non-'thing'? Can you bring it to me and show me it?". The preacher looks worried. "Tell you what," the paleontologist concludes, "I've just done it - there, it has no validity, it is as insubstantial as an idea, it does not exist. I laugh at the absurdity of your 'thing'! Back to the drawingboard!". As the man walks away, the preacher persists in shouting after him; "But... but you proved nothing!" "Whatever you say," the man replies, tossing him a fossil, "...have a nice day!".

I've already given you reasons why religion is to blame for world atrocities in my previous post. If we are to consider in the case of Islam that Muhammad decided its followers must surrender to the will of Allah, this placed an enormous and growing ball of power at the feet of its subsequent preachers. No wonder such a collosal, and dangerously repressive ideology is being abused by nutters who know how to talk the talk.

Religion does not create itself. It is created, embraced, transformed, exploited and spat out by people. The concept is unnecessary and a bane on modern human life.

:rolleyes:

Congrats, there is officially nothing in there to argue that I haven't already argued at least twice in this thread. There's some bizzare and nonsensical hypothetical conversations that are the exact opposite of the subject at hand and does nothing for your side of the argument, theres some stuff that actually supports my argument, and some definate generalizations where you seem to think that people need to argee with every little minutiae of a religion before subscribing to it. Hate to break it to you, but nobody does that.
EDIT: BTW, if you're going to talk about religion as a whole, then you probably SHOULD be able to talk about something other than christianity

[PR3SSUR3]

So we are understanding that people make up their own interpretations of religion to suit themselves, including the bad guys who exploit the concept's potential power to bring pain and suffering to millions. That even though all the divine and spiritual rules and guidance for life which can be achieved independently through oneself without subscription to any cults or churches, it can instead be bandwagoned and jumped on to give power and significance to religious organisations and leave them open to menace and corruption instead of us carrying the can within ourselves?

Still think religion isn't a bad thing?

People do not need religion to be sociable, civil and develop naturally. Religion needs people to fight it's cause because - as you say - everyone wants different 'beliefs'. And it is within this blind faith that mass exploitation and terror occurs.

We do not need it - it gives purpose to fear and tyranny.

My fable suggests one does not need to prove negative what has no basis.

And Haunted, science is not a religion; it is a knowledge and a skill of factual understanding. The word is being bent out of of shape and desperately applied to any form of commitment.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
So we are understanding that people make up their own interpretations of religion to suit themselves, including the bad guys who exploit the concept's potential power to bring pain and suffering to millions. That even though all the divine and spiritual rules and guidance for life which can be achieved independently through oneself without subscription to any cults or churches, it can instead be bandwagoned and jumped on to give power and significance to religious organisations and leave them open to menace and corruption instead of us carrying the can within ourselves?

Still think religion isn't a bad thing?

People do not need religion to be sociable, civil and develop naturally. Religion needs people to fight it's cause because - as you say - everyone wants different 'beliefs'. And it is within this blind faith that mass exploitation and terror occurs.

We do not need it - it gives purpose to fear and tyranny.

My fable suggests one does not need to prove negative what has no basis.

And Haunted, science is not a religion; it is a knowledge and a skill of factual understanding. The word is being bent out of of shape and desperately applied to any form of commitment.

Correct, I still think religion is not a bad thing. Anything can be exploited by people who want to do horrible things. Religion as a scape goat is no different than, say, violent movies as a scape goat. The problem isn't with the religion, the problem is with the people who use and exploit it. You're saying it's religion's fault simply because it's there to be exploited? That's no kind of logic at all.

[PR3SSUR3]

Disagreed - anything cannot be so exploited by people who want to do horrible things, certainly not so obviously and directly as a set of rules which decides that people are lesser beings and must follow a set of (variable, stay on your toes) rules upon fear of extreme consequence and punishment both in life and in death.

Violent films are a created physical product, not in the same sense that religion is a product of theory and insubstance - therefore its exploitation is wild and neverending.

Keep 'em coming - this is so much better than 'Stream of Conciousness'!



:p


;)

[The STE]

anything, ANYTHING can be exploited, and to say something can be faulted just by being able to be exploited is ridiculous. Judeo-Christian religions: Thou shalt not kill. Islam: Don't kill (not sure if Islam's rule against killing was with the Ten Commandments, but it's in there). Those are flat-out. They don't have a Fair Game rule. They say that killing is wrong. I don't recall anywhere in the bible that says "Don't kill people, except those motherfuckers over there!" They say don't kill. So the fact that people blame/attribute their misdeeds to their religion is in no way indicitive of the religion, and can in no way be BLAMED on the religion, because the second you allow that, if one allows the blame to be put on religion, then people can start taking away their personal responsibility for their actions. THAT'S why it's the same as blaming violent movies. It's just like anything else that takes the blame off of the people and onto something else. It is people that is the problem, not the religions that flat out say that what those people are doing is wrong.

Hell, the only religion that I could even a LITTLE bit understand placing any blame on is the Buddhist principle that both evil and good must exist, but I've never heard anybody kill in the name of Buddhism.

[PR3SSUR3]

Islam essentially follows the Ten Commandments.

I think I have already put it to you that the exploitation of religion has far wider and more devastating consequences than ideas that might be sparked through watching a violent film, and that the unneccessity of religion to be able to practice positive living makes religion, to use the phrase again, more bother than it is worth. Millions of people are not raped and killed because of a movie. A violent book would be a better analogy, such as The Bible or The Qur'an which fling flesh and blood about with such reckless abandon amidst their holy and influential teachings.

People always need a reason to kill, and religions we do not need are the biggest reason. Therefore they can be indicted and blamed as an ill conceived ideology that simply does not work because it underestimates the erratic behaviour of humans and blows up in the face of all concerned, whether it is through criminal misuse in life or the fantastical promises that are not realised upon death.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Islam essentially follows the Ten Commandments.

I think I have already put it to you that the exploitation of religion has far wider and more devastating consequences than ideas that might be sparked through watching a violent film, and that the unneccessity of religion to be able to practice positive living makes religion, to use the phrase again, more bother than it is worth. Millions of people are not raped and killed because of a movie. A violent book would be a better analogy, such as The Bible or The Qur'an which fling flesh and blood about with such reckless abandon amidst their holy and influential teachings.

People always need a reason to kill, and religions we do not need are the biggest reason. Therefore they can be indicted and blamed as an ill conceived ideology that simply does not work because it underestimates the erratic behaviour of humans and blows up in the face of all concerned, whether it is through criminal misuse in life or the fantastical promises that are not realised upon death.

They are similar to violent films in that they take the blame away from personal responsibility, as I already said. People may or may not need a reason to kill, there've been plenty of murders that had little to no motive. And blaming religion for murder ignores the many people who are reasonable and well adjusted ("Oh, but if they're religious then they're not reasonable or well adjusted lol :rolleyes:") people who are religious and DON'T hate or kill or hurt people. As for 'religions we do not need', some people need them. That's why we (maybe not you) keep hearing about all these people that were helped by whatever religion. SOME people need it.

Again, religion its self hasn't hurt anybody. People have. People are the problem. If religion were the problem, then there'd be far fewer, if any, religious people who haven't done anything wrong. Blaming religion is ignorant and bigoted.

[Haunted]

And!!!! Arouuuuuund and we go and we go! And around and around we go!

Let me put it like this:

I'm not just backing up S, because he is a friend, very intelligent and knowledgeable on many subjects, and just happens to be good...nevermind...

Let me suggest, Pr33sur3 or whatever, that you take the time to do a little research and then return to the discussion with a response. The reasons are as follows.

1. You're repeating yourself quite a bit.
2. You're not really making much sense.
3. You really don't seem to be very knowledgeable on the subject.
4. You're dead wrong on many points, except about how certain psychopaths have, indeed, used religion to their dastardly ends. Keep in mind that also can be said of Marxism, Socialism, and even Democracy itself. Isms have a tendency to look good on paper it's true, but only the true of heart and the worthy of spirit may find peace in them or some such...

You seem to only understand the negative pieces of two major religions. You don't even understand the fullness of either of those religions. I doubt you've read the Qu'ran or the Bible, the Vedas, any Sutras, the Tain, etc. You've read the works of the philosphers following. You've never met the true believers who espouse the teachings of the actual doctrines as they are written (i.e. to inspire peace within the hearts of the readers).

Furthermore, it isn't about relying on a great "supernatural" power, but yet, finding a connection with oneself and everything else.

There's a lot you don't get. Your posts are hypocritical, and you've only to read them, to notice this about them. Take a moment or two to do a little thinking, a little research...educate yourself. Rethink what you've been saying, because by and large you're off the mark, and then post again. Otherwise, you're going to keep saying the same thing, and other than pointing out the failings of the Church and the doings of radical non-Islamic Muslims (who only believe that they are practicing Islam, while most Muslims know better), you're totally wrong.

[psiren]

This is one of those debates that no 'side' can ever win. It seems a simple truth that Mankind needs a faith in something, not necessarily a 'god' or a religion but we need faith.
Whatever your religion or upbringing/ indoctrination into a religion the problem is people have been screwed over by thousands of years of people perverting and interpreting a religion to suit them whether it be priests, governments or 'messiahs'. People need to STOP listening to other people and start listening to ''God''.
As far as i'm concerned, i pray to my gods, everyone else is free to pray to and discover their own guides, gods, faith and truth.

[Elvis_Christ]

Originally posted by psiren
People need to STOP listening to other people and start listening to ''God''

What do you mean?

[zwoti]

Originally posted by psiren
People need to STOP listening to other people and start listening to ''God''.

he never answers my calls, like horror never answers pm's







wait a moment, you never see them both in a room at the same time :eek:

[PR3SSUR3]

The connection between oneself and everything else is, like science, decision and mathematics... cause and effect - your attempts to pin spiritual and even magical connotations to these is of course fanciful and groundless. Unfounded stories of divinity or unearthly revelation may have had strong influence in ancient folklore, but they remain fables to dress up and disguise physics and simple human sense and decency - appealing only to the weak and deluded unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions and effect they might have on the earth.

Marxism, Socialism and Democracy are policital movements based upon credible observations of reality and not a reasonable comparision with the idea of creationism, pentangles and magic beads. However the herding, repressing and filtering of individual natural thought and constant search for 'meaning' (and tremendous fear of it) could be considered religion's dictatorship.

Reprise: nobody needs religion - all its positive actions and inspiration can be achieved without it, though experience and ambition. It is not a sentient thing, so of course it cannot rape and murder by itself either. I've already stated that a violent film created as fictional art and entertainment cannot carry the can for violent acts as religion - created so profoundly as a fact and a way of life - so repeatedly does. If such a disproportionate amount of people begin bloody wars through an interpretation of Zombie Creeping Flesh the matter might have to be looked at again.

I'm sure you and your friend are quite intelligent Haunted, but you really need to get to the core of the debate and address the fundamental issues of logic being against the idea of religion that I have put to you. It is classic behaviour of the affected spiritual to dance around proclaiming that 'you know nothing', while providing absolutely nothing of any substance to convince anybody otherwise that what it is we do not know is worth much more than a contemptuous glance.

P.S. Loved the 'leaving the conversation' U-turn!

;)

[ENTITY2000]

scientology sucks ass neway!!!!!!!!:p

[psiren]

Originally posted by Elvis_Christ
What do you mean?

Meditate...find 'your' god/s ... trust your feelings and intuition. you may not find anything or you may 'find' yourself...or don't-this doesn't matter to everyone. free choice:)

[Haunted]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3


P.S. Loved the 'leaving the conversation' U-turn!

;)

I can't ever let a conversation concerning religion go. It's my life's work in many ways.

However, Pr3ssur3, I still maintain that you still don't know what you're talking about. You haven't made a single substantial statement, because you don't seem to realize there are no substantial statements concerning this topic.

A great quote by Abraham Lincoln: It is better to sit in silence and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

How do you know what I've experienced has been "fanciful?" The simple answer is: You don't. You never will. You have no right, nor any cause to judge my experiences against your so-called logic. To do so is the epitome of ignorance; it's a "flat earth" notion.

If you want to go around believing every thing you've been told while discounting experience, have at you. Again, I use the ostrich reference.

I said, some where back in the beginning of this discussion, that there is no such thing as "supernatural" or "paranormal" for all is nature. I'm beginning to think, Pr3ssur3 that you, and others like you, a frightened of any paradigm that shifts your own, which you firmly hold to be the only one.

Whereas anyone of us "fanciful" creatures find logic and reason an interesting read on the john, if at one point, your foundation of "there is nothing out there that cannot be explained by reason" were ever shaken by anything at all, you would go completely mad.

In actual truth, I really don't mind if you think that my workings as a Witch are deluded fantasies. You and others like you make my life a lot easier, because if you weren't around, I would have been burned at the stake years ago. In essence, it is not my delusions, but yours that provide me with the safety to practice my art in peace. For that, I thank you. May you have the right to tell the rest of the world that women like me do not, in fact, exist.

[Soloman Kane]

Let me get a few points cleared up here. Scientology is in my mind a very dangerous cult that no one seems know exactly what thier teachings are. I have a tendancy to think that its another cult putting on the trappings of a mainstream religion. It does this for one really good reason, money. Money because in essence religions are actual another type of consumer product. I have a real promblem with the way that they advertise. Conversion used to be at the tip of some warlord's sword. These days its at the tip of a doorbell.
I respect PR3SSUR's opinion but I don't share such a singularly cynical view point. Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism have caused any number of problems in the world when used by individuals for personal goals or the goals of nation states. Sir you are making the classic mistake of assuming psychology & the psychology of religion are one & the same. You provide an opinion but do nothing infact to back up your statements with fact or even close your arguements. These arguements are infact open ended & left as such so that you may continue to debate the issue. This leads me to only one conclusion. You like to argue. :D

[PR3SSUR3]

On the contrary, I would be well impressed upon witnessing a ghost, miracle or proof of ESP and the like. But I do not think I am going to. A lot of 'mediums' and spiritual types would say this scepticism means to not be visionary or 'receptive' to such things, which is to also say that they simply see what they want to see, or believe what they want to believe in.

Which finally means that deities, the occult, supernature (i.e. beyond nature, since you are questioning it), magic and any other logic-defying concept can exist as an idea but does not have the power or substance to interfere with reality other than through the varied actions of its followers.

To claim I have not made a single substantial statement is a bit strange considering I have referred to both science and logic, but to say there are no such possible statements available whatsoever in this kind of discussion is very contemptuous indeed and suggests you are far from comfortable with your lifestyle choice of swords and sorcery and could be a few frogs short of a full cauldron.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Reprise: nobody needs religion - all its positive actions and inspiration can be achieved without it, though experience and ambition. It is not a sentient thing, so of course it cannot rape and murder by itself either. I've already stated that a violent film created as fictional art and entertainment cannot carry the can for violent acts as religion - created so profoundly as a fact and a way of life - so repeatedly does. If such a disproportionate amount of people begin bloody wars through an interpretation of Zombie Creeping Flesh the matter might have to be looked at again.

People have been helped by religion. THEY apparently needed it.


The religions that you refer to are a way of life, one that is against those wars and murder et cetera. If there is a way of life that says "Hey, don't kill people" and the people who claim to follow said way of life say "Okay" then kill people, how is that way of life to blame? Who CARES if it's based on invisible men in the sky or the souls of dead aliens or anything like that? Hell, people can believe that the whole universe is on the back of a giant turtle if they want. If the message is "don't kill people", and people who claim to follow that religion kill people, the religion is not to blame. The people doing the killings is. I don't care HOW ridiculous the beliefs of the religion seem to everyone else.
EDIT: and re: the "disproportionate" remark, do you have statistics regarding the amount of people who have killed and murdered and started wars in the name of God/Allah/Whatever vs. the total number of believers? I don't just mean the fact that all you may hear about is the violent ones, I mean concrete facts and numbers.

[PR3SSUR3]

Kane: So far as why people choose to become religious, this varies from person to person - but nobody turns because the doctrines are fact. As I have already covered, people may want a new set of positive (and negative) rules to follow for whatever their own reasons, but they can achieve nothing that cannot be obtained through self discipline and rational thought (apart from the mystical but redundant - often damaging - elements that go with it). I'm not really interested in having a load of God botherers on the couch, since the concept is so wholly misguided.
Freud also spoke of religion as an illusion, and maintained that it is a fantasy structure from which man must be set free if he is to grow to maturity.

I have also already expressed thoughts on the wrong connection with political movements.

What do you want me to back up my statements with, Homer Simpson's calculated document that God does not exist?

It is interesting that I am now being challenged to close arguments about the non-existence of the divine, and it is a testament to how far this thread has come.

And I don't have a particular fondness for arguing, but this isn't going to be whacko day so somebody has to bring gravity to the situation.

:cool:

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
What do you want me to back up my statements with, Homer Simpson's calculated document that God does not exist?

which is why you leave that out of the argument. You don't bring stuff in that you can't back up on your own. "You can't prove me wrong, so I'm right" isn't an argument. You have to prove yourself right.

[PR3SSUR3]

Nobody knows or can estimate the number of Islamic Extremists there are scattered across the globe, since the likes of Al-Qaeda has no clear structure and its members are difficult to determine.

There is surely only a small percentage of the (approx) 1.3 billion Muslims who subscribe to terror.

Within this small percentage, in the United States in 2004 Islamic Extremists commited 57% of fatalities and 61% of woundings where a terrorist perpetrator could be identified. There were 655 terror attacks worldwide in the same year, and almost 2000 people died. Many more in internal reglious war and cleansing operations.

As a direct result of watching The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, 0% of its fanatics gave or followed orders to kill. If the film had 1.3 billion fans, it is estimated none of them would kill in its name since the film does not preach irrefutable values and rules and warn gravely against violation.

The consequences of religious abuse are violent and far-reaching, and since it is an unneccessary practice in the first place even a small percentage of wayward nutters is enough to seal its fate as a bane on modern life.

If you go back to the preacher and paleontologist story you will find meaning that I do not have to prove a single thing about the idea of religion.

[The STE]

For one, you haven't given a credible source. For two, you're completely misinterpriting my comparison to violent movies. Take two people, each have commited a murder. One person says he did it for Christianity, one person did it because of a violent movie he saw. The religion is as much to blame for the one killing as the movie is to the other: not at all. The people CHOSE to kill.

And as far as calling it an unnecessary practice, it is apparently necessary to the ones who say they were helped by religion. "Oh, but they could have-" nope. Could they have been helped with something else? Maybe, maybe not. But their religion helped them.

[PR3SSUR3]

My credible source is the NCC.

You could have said millions of rogue Muslims is still not a disproportionate amount of killers within one movement. However it is difficult to determine either way since there are not exactly many areas of life to compare portions of which that go bad on this large a scale. Race, perhaps, but that is hardly a lifestyle choice - and the behaviour of many within is of course often dictated by religion once again. Social movements do not inflict the same terror, political movements are inflicted upon the masses by the elite of the group.

So while two different people might well each cite religion and Dawn of the Dead as their influence to commit murder, it is most unlikely that as the number of committed members increases the number of atrocities increases the same between them. More people are always going to kill in the name of religion, or do you not think so for sure because there are not quite as many violent film fans to survey? Religion breeds many, many self-serving nutters - violent cinema only a handful at best.

I've already given you my thoughts several times on your last paragraph. It is as neccessary as the morning cup of tea. It might be nice, and familiar, but I would echo Freud's analysis from a few posts ago.

[Haunted]

I wouldn't rely on Frued were I you. Psychiatric medicine has increasing moved away from Fruedian principles over the last hundred plus years. Now, with even more advanced findings of the mental workings of the brain, which, in truth, will possibly never be fully understood, Frued's ideas are being tossed out at a faster rater than ever.

In the 90's people started becoming really mistrustful of psychiatric medicine, because many psychiatrists were themselves nuts. However, there are diamonds in the rough, as the saying goes. These are the doctors that keep abreast of neurology and neuropsychiatry, and advancements in neurological research.

A regular run of the mill shrink will prescribe lithium and prozac...maybe a mild antipsychotic for someone with bipolar disorder. A doctor of psychiatry will prescribe an anticonvolsent medicine because the chemicals that cause the massive fluctuations in mood patterns are related to the chemicals that cause epilectic seizures.

Also, it is a medical fact that putting someone with bipolar disorder on an antidepresant is seriously stupid, because it will cause manic episodes which in turn cause psychotic episodes. Thus, among learned doctors of psychiatry who actually know what they're doing, don't really use psychotropic medication anymore, because it doesn't work. (Psychotropic= Antidepresants and shit like that). They also don't dope you up on heavy medication, because they believe that quality of life is essential to the patient.

Also, bare in mind that Frued was, in fact, an opium addicted coke head in love with his mother. ...Just a little food for thought.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
My credible source is the NCC.

You could have said millions of rogue Muslims is still not a disproportionate amount of killers within one movement. However it is difficult to determine either way since there are not exactly many areas of life to compare portions of which that go bad on this large a scale. Race, perhaps, but that is hardly a lifestyle choice - and the behaviour of many within is of course often dictated by religion once again. Social movements do not inflict the same terror, political movements are inflicted upon the masses by the elite of the group.

So while two different people might well each cite religion and Dawn of the Dead as their influence to commit murder, it is most unlikely that as the number of committed members increases the number of atrocities increases the same between them. More people are always going to kill in the name of religion, or do you not think so for sure because there are not quite as many violent film fans to survey? Religion breeds many, many self-serving nutters - violent cinema only a handful at best.

I've already given you my thoughts several times on your last paragraph. It is as neccessary as the morning cup of tea. It might be nice, and familiar, but I would echo Freud's analysis from a few posts ago.

Yes, you've given your thoughts several times, but you've yet to back them up. All you do is say "people don't need religion" and a handful of other things that you just stretch out to paragraph length. Although I will ask one question: Do you have any actual experience with religion, or just what you look up on the internet?

[PR3SSUR3]

Well, I seem to have more than engaged your statements, questions and accusations, so your dismissive comments are plainly incorrect as anyone unbiased reading the thread can see for themselves.

It is not for a man to disprove the incredible theories of another - he can only be expected to prove his alternative explanations. In this case, the idea of creationism is destroyed by evolution delivered through paleontology, and the subsequently weakened concept of a deity has been laid to rest through the simple physics and mathematics that are understood to govern life. And I've given examples of how religion has created worldwide repression and death (and children raping) for many centuries, and that it seems to be on the up and up. Take away the fantastical elements of religion and the doctrines become simply general good sense with no divine or - most importantly for the stability of the planet - extreme consequences that can be threatened by installed 'leaders'. Just think - condoms greenlighted for AIDS and famine-ridden African countries.

It's a much better state of affairs all round. Of course if you're asking me to prove that people do not need religion then you're going to have to be patient - it will take time to get round everyone, and I am not a magician like that Jesus and David Blane.

I have enough experience with the subject - maybe less than you, maybe more than you... who knows?

---

Freud issue: Coke snorting Freud made groundbreaking observations of the human mind and behaviour that today's wayward neurotic children are unlikely to take kindly to. In these casual pill popping times, it's no wonder.

Now, are you angry because you cannot accept your mutated lack of penis?

;)

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Well, I seem to have more than engaged your statements, questions and accusations, so your dismissive comments are plainly incorrect as anyone unbiased reading the thread can see for themselves.

It is not for a man to disprove the incredible theories of another - he can only be expected to prove his alternative explanations. In this case, the idea of creationism is destroyed by evolution delivered through paleontology, and the subsequently weakened concept of a deity has been laid to rest through the simple physics and mathematics that are understood to govern life. And I've given examples of how religion has created worldwide repression and death (and children raping) for many centuries, and that it seems to be on the up and up. Take away the fantastical elements of religion and the doctrines become simply general good sense with no divine or - most importantly for the stability of the planet - extreme consequences that can be threatened by installed 'leaders'. Just think - condoms greenlighted for AIDS and famine-ridden African countries.

It's a much better state of affairs all round. Of course if you're asking me to prove that people do not need religion then you're going to have to be patient - it will take time to get round everyone, and I am not a magician like that Jesus and David Blane.

I have enough experience with the subject - maybe less than you, maybe more than you... who knows?

Coke snorting Freud made groundbreaking observations of the human mind and behaviour that today's wayward neurotic children are unlikely to take kindly to. In these casual pill popping times, it's no wonder.

Now, are you angry because you cannot accept your mutated lack of penis?

;)

The theory isn't the point. YOU brought it into the conversation, YOU back up YOUR point. End of story. As for your "alternative explanation", you haven't offered any. All you've said is that God doesn't exist. Well, that's one of your main points of argument, so back it up.

You have given NO examples of how RELIGION has cause any of the things you have described. PEOPLE did it, and you haven't given one single credible argument as to why one should shift the blame away from people. You bring up science and logic, but you have so far used neither as a part of your argument. You have an unbelieveably biased view against something you know very little to nothing about (looking up things to back up your "religion is bad" argument doesn't count), and you're turning this into a circular argument.

No, you have not given a credible argument to blame religion for the atrocities done in its name. The only thing you've said is that "People did bad things in the name of religion, and people don't need religion, therefore it's religion's fault" and that is a terrible argument.

You brought up Freud, found out that his theories are being all but done away with nowadays, and just insult the "wayward neurotic children" and "pillpoppers" who don't give a shit about Freud anymore, just because invoking the name of Almighty Freud didn't work.

And then, GASP, resort to petty (there's that word again) insults. Aw, Haunted has a mutated crotch, that just totally negates anything she says, doesn't it? It's not that YOU'RE wrong (you are), it's that she's mad about her groin! BRILLIANT!

Ad Hominems just make it seem like you're grasping at straws. I mean, one could easily point out that you're being an arrogant, bigoted asshole who's trying to be Oh So Trendy by using all of his logic (which you have referred to, but never used) and science (see: logic) to debunk that retarded-ass religion stuff. I could even throw in a sarcastic "you're so cool" and add a smiley face at the end, maybe a :cool: or something. It would be easy, but why do it? It doesn't argue any points, it doesn't back up anything that anybody says, it just attacks the person who's making the points. And if we're gonna do that then just give me a minute and I can start up an AIM chat room and we gan discuss this like real 8th graders.

[PR3SSUR3]

Try not to get in a flap kiddo. You've already been told that the mystical basis of religious doctrines are fundamentally flawed in their suggestion of higher powers because they invite violent exploitation from human nature. The religions are wrong, as proven by the people who follow them. They keep the meek weak and give the aggressive a reason to run amok. Or maybe that is within God's great plan? Ha ha - a debate for another day perhaps.

I'm guessing you're not well up on your Freud, so you won't know he thought females were deformed males - and I guess comedy isn't your strong point either.

Tell you what, here is my proof that there is no God:-

\/(21) x 76t/92832.23 (52/32+a+d)
(x=y2 b12.09023) x 2323.23t |z| = ea1.999 + x dx/x+b - tan(x)
sin(232) = cos(23.5ea) x rnd3 [a+23b] + \/(16-a2)
n(6) x 23.2 [te3], 232.23/23(a+d-e) = 663.6 |abd(2)| (+ rnd3)

You're so uncool.

:cool:

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Try not to get in a flap kiddo. You've already been told that the mystical basis of religious doctrines are fundamentally flawed in their suggestion of higher powers because they invite violent exploitation from human nature. The religions are wrong, as proven by the people who follow them. They keep the meek weak and give the aggressive a reason to run amok. Or maybe that is within God's great plan? Ha ha - a debate for another day perhaps.

I'm guessing you're not well up on your Freud, so you won't know he thought females were deformed males - and I guess comedy isn't your strong point either.

Tell you what, here is my proof that there is no God:-

\/(21) x 76t/92832.23 (52/32+a+d)
(x=y2 b12.09023) x 2323.23t |z| = ea1.999 + x dx/x+b - tan(x)
sin(232) = cos(23.5ea) x rnd3 [a+23b] + \/(16-a2)
n(6) x 23.2 [te3], 232.23/23(a+d-e) = 663.6 |abd(2)| (+ rnd3)

You're so uncool.

:cool:

YOU'VE already been told that the actions of people only prove that people are the problem. The actions are wrong, even the religions they claim to follow say so.

[PR3SSUR3]

Now that I have disproved the existence of God, everything else seems rather irrelevant.

[The STE]

a) you haven't disproved the existance of god. b) it doesn't change the fact that people are responsible for their own actions.


But if you'd like to end the discussion, that's fine. But don't do so under the assumption that you have proven yourself right by any means. Religion (not a particular organization, not The Church, but the religion its self) is not responsible for people committing acts that are against its rules. Period. Religion (again, not a particular organization, not The Church, but religion) is not bad. You've made arguments based entirely on organizations, the actions of people claiminng a particular religion, but none on the religion its self except that people don't need religion (the people who need it seem to think so), and that God doesn't exist (which ignores the religions that don't follow the Judeo-Christian/Islam idea of "God"/"Allah"), neither of which you have proven (a joke equation is not a proof). Despite all your claims and references (but not uses of) logic and science, and your references to 'non-bias' people who would totally be on your side except they've been strangly absent from the thread, you have not given a CREDIBLE bit of argument to back up what you've said. All you've given is your opinion, touted like it was fact.

But, yeah, if you want to just end this here, sure.

[PR3SSUR3]

The actions of people only prove that people are the problem... and who do you think defines the religions the people worship? I think it might be people.

And my equation is no joke - it is irrefutable proof.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
The actions of people only prove that people are the problem... and who do you think defines the religions the people worship? I think it might be people.

And my equation is no joke - it is irrefutable proof.

And we've gotten to twisting peoples words around.

And if your equation is such irrefutable proof, then explain it to us lowly non-math-geniuses

[PR3SSUR3]

These are your words, I haven't twisted them around - merely used them against you.

The equation is already explained in its simplest form.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
These are your words, I haven't twisted them around - merely used them against you.

The equation is already explained in its simplest form.

Yes you have because you knew full well what I meant by what I said. The people that are committing the atrocities are the problem. The people that defined the religions seemed to think that killing was wrong, seeing as how it's one of the core tenets of all the major religions.


and no, the equation is not explained in any form. If you leave the equation as is with no explanation, it will be ignored. Do not try to use it as part of your argument again unless you plan on explaining it.

[PR3SSUR3]

Some rather dubious instructions from Islam, apparently the world's fastest growing religion:-

"O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing" (Sura al-Tawba 9:123).

"Fight against those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger, have forbidden - such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book - until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humbled" (Sura al-Tawba 9:29).

"The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;" (Sura Al Ma idah 5:33).

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." (Sura AL-BAQARA 2:16) The Quran

>eek!< And from The Bible, representing the biggest religion in the world today:-

"Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, as a long hind and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times." (Proverbs 5:18-19)

"Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I said, 'I will climb the palm tree. I will take hold of its fruit stalks.' Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine and the fragrance of your breath like apples." (Song of Solomon 7:7-8)

Cor! Grabbing a woman's breastses!

"Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king's house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance. So David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, 'Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?' And David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. And the woman conceived, and she sent and told David, and said, 'I am pregnant.'" (2 Samuel 11:1-5 )

"There were two women, the daughters of one mother; and they played the harlot in Egypt. They played the harlot in their youth; there their breasts were pressed, and there their virgin bosom was handled.... she lusted after her lovers... and she bestowed her harlotries on them, all of whom were the choicest men of Assyria.... for in her youth men had lain with her, and they handled her virgin bosom and poured out their lust on her.... And she lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses." (Ezekiel 23:1-20)

Rape and prositution?

"And it came about after these events that his master's wife looked with desire at Joseph, and she said, 'Lie with me.' But he refused.... And she caught him by his garment, saying, 'Lie with me!' And he left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside. When she saw he had left his garment in her hand and had fled outside, she called to the men of her household, and said to them, 'See, he has brought in a Hebrew to us to make sport of us; he came in to me to lie with me, and I screamed, And it came about when he heard that I raised my voice and screamed, that he left his garment beside me and fled, and went outside.'" (Genesis 39:7-15)

Attempted infidelity, and subsequent accusing of rape?

"And Lot went up to Zoar, and stayed in the mountains, and his two daughters with him.... Then the firstborn said to the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.' So they made their father drink wine that night, and the first-born went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. And it came about on the morrow, that the first-born said to the younger, 'Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.' So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father." (Genesis 19:30-36)

Incest... after first drugging the father.

"Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with a man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like...'" (Genesis 19:4-8)

A city of homosexual men... bent on raping. Too bad they had to make do with two virgin daughters.

Kill anyone who "gives his seed" to Molech. If you refuse, God will cut you and your family off (Leviticus 20:2-5). If a man "lies" with his daughter-in-law, then both must be killed (Leviticus 20:12). Homosexuals must be executed (Leviticus 20:13). People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death (Leviticus 20:27). A priest's daughter who "plays the whore" is to be burned to death (Leviticus 21:9). Don't do any work on the day of atonement or God will destroy you (Leviticus 23:29-30). "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse (Exodus 22:18). "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed (Exodus 22:20). The purification of the unclean. These absurd rituals, cruel sacrifices, and unjust punishments are vitally important to God. He even insists that they are to be "a perpetual statute" to all humankind (Numbers 19:1-22). God gives more instructions for the ritualistic killing of animals. The smell of burning flesh is "a sweet savour unto the Lord." (Numbers 15:3, 13-14, 24). After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 innocent bystanders, the people complained saying, "ye have killed the people of the Lord." So God, who doesn't take kindly to criticism, sends a plague on the people. And "they that died in the plague were 14,700." (Numbers 16:41-50). God repeats his order (see 1:51) to kill any strangers who happen to come near (Numbers 3:10).

The two biggest Religions on the planet are based upon these texts. It is not difficult to see they are conveyors of bad ideas, and that their 'good' principles are borne from savagery and exploitation. The Bible is little different to the script of Cannibal Holocaust.

My equation is complex and watertight, and cannot be reduced down any further to suit other needs. If you do not accept it that is fine, nothing has changed apart from this proof of no God - and it is perhaps fitting that such proof be conveniently impenetrable by blinded believers.

[The STE]

if we're gonna turn this into a "Look what the bible tells people to do! EVIL! EVIL!" thread, then allow me to quote my favorite passage:

Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times. Leviticus 19:26


Damn those clocks. Work of the devil, I tells ya. There are many passages in the bible/koran that are open to interpritation. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" seems pretty straightforward. And I don't recall the Catholic priests fucking children in the name of the lord.

[PR3SSUR3]

The apostolic succession doctrine makes valid ordinations and institutional affiliation the prime concern in clerical status. As long as the officiant has been validly ordained, his personal sins do not affect the validity of the baptisms, absolutions or masses he administers.

Which is not to say Catholic priest abusers attack children in the name of The Lord, but they do enjoy some of the benefits that go with the position. They have been having sex with young boys correctly understanding - through Catholic doctrines - that their work for The Lord remains unaffected.

Traditional Catholics have also charged the Second Vatican Council with fostering a climate that encourages priests to abuse children (Time Magazine, January 2003).

[The STE]

Traditional Catholics have also charged the Second Vatican Council with fostering a climate that encourages priests to abuse children (Time Magazine, January 2003).

Hehe, yeah.
SVC: Damnit, priest man, stop beating off?
Priest man: Then what am I supposed to do?
SVC: I dunno, fuck children for all I care, just stop beating off!
:p

[Haunted]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3


Now, are you angry because you cannot accept your mutated lack of penis?

;)

These are the things that I'm gleaning from your last statement:

1. You obliviously don't believe in orgasms either, considering that you've probably never had one.
2. ...And let's just lay it on the table here... You're upset that I'm infinitely more educated, smarter, and more articulate than you are. What makes this even more difficult for you to swallow is the fact that I am a woman.
3. You are a violating asshole. I did not invite you nor made any references or jokes of my own regarding my womanhood, and thus you have no cause to do so either.

I realize that you're trying to piss me off, because that is what people who try to argue with no basis in fact do when they are threatened by the more intelligent members of the conversations. However, that comment went way too far. Way too far. I'd love to threaten you with, "You'd better not ever say something like that to me again," but I realize that this is an internet forum.

By the way, those people who claim that the Second Vatican Council supported the abuse of young boys or advocated it are idiots of the worst kind. The Second Vatican Council convened to discuss world poverty and the digeneration of compassion and kindness. They tried to set about plans for the Catholic Church to reach out to the world in charity. They addressed the ideas behind what is known as "Liberation Theology." Also, there were others present at the Council besides the "inner circle" of the papacy. John Paul was Pope at the time, and he was one of the best Popes the world had seen in centuries. His predecessor, John Paul II tried to follow in his foot steps. (However his predecessor is a schmuck).

[PR3SSUR3]

Pope John Paul only managed a 33-day papacy in 1978, and only participated in Second Vatican Council sessions as a Bishop - he was not Pope during the three year Vatican II. Pope at the time was John XXIII, and the Vatican II was closed in 1965 under Paul VI. Whatever else the Vatican II set out to do, it also stands accused of inaction over child abuse (D Vincent Twomey, SVD professor of moral theology, St Patrick's College, Maynooth, and author of The End of Irish Catholicism?).

Successor to John Paul (who renewed birth control bans in spite of a Chruch commission's recommendation for change), John Paul II, was a reactionary who wanted to turn back the clock on modern reality. His highly conservative theology prohibited female ordination, birth control and abortion, and he branded overpopulation a myth. In 2003 he told countries stricken by AIDS not to use condoms because they are riddled with tiny holes through which HIV can pass. The Vatican made these claims across four continents. Despite The World Health Organisation reassurance than condoms are impermeable to HIV, the Vatican continued its claims.

But I agree you are an infinitely more eductated, smarter and articulate(d) woman than I am, if it makes you happy.


:)

[The STE]

actually, I think that's true, the pores in condoms are twice the size of the HIV virus cells

not saying don't use them, of course, but the holes thing I've heard before

[PR3SSUR3]

The NIH confirmed in 2001 condoms reduce the risk of HIV transference by approximately 85% - other studies (source unspecified, but backed up by the WHO) have shown that the proper and consistent use of condoms prevented HIV from spreading from an infected partner to a non-infected partner in every case.

Mike Roland of Rubber Chemistry and Technology claims the 0.1 micron size of an HIV virus can pass through the 5.0 micron holes in latex rubber. However these tests were made on rubber gloves. The US Public Health Service confirms condoms are manufactured to much higher standards than gloves, with at least double the amount of latex protection applied. If 4 out of 1000 condoms fail the leak test, the whole batch is rejected; the standard for gloves is 40 out of 1000. A study of latex condoms by the National Institutes of Health using an electron microscope found no holes at a magnification of 2000 X.

The Vatican recently attempted to exploit the apparent uncertainty of AIDS prevention in every single case by announcing to millions of followers that condoms do not prevent HIV, and not to use them.

[The STE]

well, nobody ever accused the Vatican of not being assholes

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
(source unspecified, but backed up by the WHO)

Yeah, I hear Pete Townsend's been doing research in this area for years

[Haunted]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
[B
But I agree you are an infinitely more eductated, smarter and articulate(d) woman than I am, if it makes you happy.


:) [/B]

Sorry, got my Papal sucession wrong. It has been a while since I studied that particular area, and Catholic history was never my bag, nor any part of Christianity for that matter.

I still maintain, however, that once you start taking pot shots at people in the discussion, then you've exposed two things about yourself:

1. You're a jackass
2. You don't have the ability to discuss anything with any sort of intelligence. Sure you may have facts stored in your bean, but that doesn't make you any smarter than anyone else.

No where in this discussion has anyone made a comment to you concerning your genitalia and it's inability or ability to produce your focus. Nobody has discussed it's size or it's formation.

You owe me a sincere apology, godamnit, and I'm not goint to respect anything you say whatever until I get one. Up until now, it's been an interesting debate, but you've crossed the line.

You have no concern and no consideration. Your only desire is to be "right," and on a few points you have made some sense. However, you have been pulling a lot of information out of no where.

So, when you (A). Assert opinions instead of facts, then you don't have a good argument (B). Make despicable comments to people within the discussion in order to make yourself seem more astonishing than you really are, you have no business trying to have a reasonable and intellectual discussion with anyone except maybe yourself or your pets.

[PR3SSUR3]

I'm sorry for joking that you had a funny willy.

Friends?

:) :) :)

[Haunted]

Accepted. Carry on.:)

[The STE]

hmph @ my awsm The Who joke getting no-sold :mad:

[Haunted]

Originally posted by The STE
Yeah, I hear Pete Townsend's been doing research in this area for years

Are you calling Pete Townsend a man-whore? Surely not!:D

[tarcher80]

intense debate, i like it i like it... religion won't be the downfall of society; "organized" religion will be the culprit.

[The STE]

Originally posted by Haunted
Are you calling Pete Townsend a man-whore? Surely not!:D

Maybe not Pete Townsend. Definately Roger Daltry, though.

[Haunted]

I hate to cut you off, S, but I have to bring this to the table. I think it will fit in with both yours, S, and yours, Pr3ssur3. I want to talk about what I like to call "the false prophets" or "snake oil salesmen" of religions/spiritualities. For this particular rant, I'd like to bitch about one in particular: Billy Graham and his fucked up ministries.

Every now and again I read his messed up collums in the paper, and I get this disturbed disgusted feeling in the pit of my stomach. The reason is that thousands, maybe over a hundred thousand people hang on every word that joker and his flunkies say.

Pr3ssur3, I know how you feel about religion in general, particularly the Christian religion, and S, you affirm that religion cannot be blamed for the people who abuse it. In this case, you're both right. The Billy Graham Ministry has created a terrible paradox.

Okay...

Yesterday I read his collum in which he was giving advice to a woman. Her problem was that her husband was spending more time with leisurely activities amongst his buddies and in front of the television than with her. Mr Graham, probably his fanatical son, Franklin, told the woman that she should consider her own selfishness. He asserted that perhaps that she should figure out what she was doing wrong instead of addressing the husband's complete lack of attentiveness within the marriage.

Today, he preached the complete infallilibility of the Bible. His assertion was that "Who would want to manipulate the word of "God." He also claimed that everything in the Bible was absolutely true, because the Bible says that everything is absolutely true.

I really want to know where this fucker got his seminary degree and where he was educated. I'm assuming that it was on another planet. Some one that stupid should not be trying to educate anyone on anything especially trying to shape their spiritual lives. No one has the answers, especially not these jackasses.

I'm not afraid of them, because they are entirely too stupid to do anything momental. I realize that the Inquisition was pretty fucking stupid too, but the Billy Graham Gang are stupid in a different way.

Thoughts? (Let's keep it too the topic at hand, Pr3ssur3, as in, not all religions, but religious idiots).

[orangestar]

Originally posted by The STE
hmph @ my awsm The Who joke getting no-sold :mad:

Only you.

[PR3SSUR3]

As a practicing empiricalist who has proved there is no God (argue if you will, prove otherwise) I would assert that since therefore The Bible has no relevance other than as a work of distorted facts and pure fiction then his comments regarding it are entirely wrong.

Therefore if Billy Graham is basing his advice on such a tome, his thoughts on this subject are completely redundant.

Speaking from the point of view of common sense, I would say he sounds chauvinistic for males while hiding behind religion.

I would also say there are tendencies - including within this thread - to refer to academic qualifications or alleged lack of them to pontificate or denounce thought. Remember that degrees and PHDs might indicate competent understanding of a particular subject, but they are not exhaustive and can sterilise and bottleneck ideas as the current curriculum sees fit.

[trishlilac]

That was very interesting to watch, but very scary to think these people are getting away with such things. You have made me very curious and i think i will be looking into scientology a little bit more. Not with a view to joining I hasten to add. Thanks

[AUSTIN316426808]

That is pretty scary to see not only what they're capable of, but more importantly, some of the things they get away with.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Concerning the religious discussion...



There's no proof that God exist or not, simply as that. In my opinion as 'stupid' as it sounds, it's a bit more rational that one does. That's another discussion that I'd rather not get into because as it's been pointed out already it has no other ending than, ''you prove it''...''no, you prove it.'' petty bullshit.

Also..

Saying that someone is stupid and/or inferior for their religious beliefs makes you no better than those who claim others are stupid and/or inferior for not having such beliefs.

Now that that's out of the way...

You can't blame a religion for the actions of what a portion of the people involved exploit it for. You also don't have any evidence to make the argument that you actually can blame religion for such actions and that it's different from people using violent movies as scapegoats. The reason you say it's different is because...

"religion has far wider and more devastating consequences than ideas that might be sparked through watching a violent film, and that the unnecessity of religion to be able to practice positive living makes religion, to use the phrase again, more bother than it is worth.

So what you're saying is since religion is a more popular scapegoat than film it's ok to throw the blame of the people who exploit it on religion. It's true that it is far wider but that still doesn't make it the religion's fault, the mosque didn't fly planes into the WTC, the Bible didn't molest any alter boys...people did those things not the religion itself. It's the same with film, music, video games ect. Whether it's a smaller scale or not is irrelevant. Just like I said a Bible or mosque has never hurt anybody, well neither has American Psycho, Marilyn Manson or Grand Theft Auto but they are constantly blamed instead of the actual people committing these actions just like you're blaming religion for the actions of the people who committed them.

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

[bloodrayne]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
Concerning the religious discussion...



There's no proof that God exist or not, simply as that. In my opinion as 'stupid' as it sounds, it's a bit more rational that one does. That's another discussion that I'd rather not get into because as it's been pointed out already it has no other ending than, ''you prove it''...''no, you prove it.'' petty bullshit.

Also..

Saying that someone is stupid and/or inferior for their religious beliefs makes you no better than those who claim others are stupid and/or inferior for not having such beliefs.

Now that that's out of the way...

You can't blame a religion for the actions of what a portion of the people involved exploit it for. You also don't have any evidence to make the argument that you actually can blame religion for such actions and that it's different from people using violent movies as scapegoats. The reason you say it's different is because...

"religion has far wider and more devastating consequences than ideas that might be sparked through watching a violent film, and that the unnecessity of religion to be able to practice positive living makes religion, to use the phrase again, more bother than it is worth.

So what you're saying is since religion is a more popular scapegoat than film it's ok to throw the blame of the people who exploit it on religion. It's true that it is far wider but that still doesn't make it the religion's fault, the mosque didn't fly planes into the WTC, the Bible didn't molest any alter boys...people did those things not the religion itself. It's the same with film, music, video games ect. Whether it's a smaller scale or not is irrelevant. Just like I said a Bible or mosque has never hurt anybody, well neither has American Psycho, Marilyn Manson or Grand Theft Auto but they are constantly blamed instead of the actual people committing these actions just like you're blaming religion for the actions of the people who committed them.

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. ^^^^^^^^Austin's longest post EVER^^^^^^^^

WOO HOO...*celebrates*...:p

But, seriously...To break away from this momentous occasion for a second...

Scientology is not REALLY a religion...It's more of a philosophy *cough cult cough*...Its founder is simply a scheming con artist trying to make a fast easy buck...There is no deity or higher power (Aliens would not count, as they would be considered organic, just like US, Even if they are supposed to be of a higher intellect than us, that would NOT make them a 'higher power'...IF they existed)...How can ANYONE believe that a science fiction writer, charged with fraud and embezzlement, running from the law, could truly be a 'spiritual leader'?...And how could they not see that his 'enlightment' and drive, as well as his sole purpose, are fueled by the pursuit of wealth...Nothing but GREED?

~A sucker is born every minute~P.T. Barnum



However...About your comments concerning religion in general...I agree 100%

[PR3SSUR3]

Au contraire Austin, I have provided proof that God does not exist. No proof to the contrary has been forthcoming. With the stalemate broken, there are of course no petty arguments.

It might be idealistic that one could exist, but not rational.

Remember that the people craft the doctrines, the people preach the values, and the people worship their Gods - with only blind faith to proffer, religion is the people, and all involved are a part of the very concept, whether they perceive themselves as 'good' or 'bad' (of course the millions of 'bad' do not religiously consider themselves as so, which demonstrates one of the awesome flaws within the practice).

That religious destruction occurs on a much larger scale than film or computer game violence is hardly irrelevant. History has taught us that the vast majority of crimes against humanity have been committed in its name - two of the current most popular offenders being Osama Bin Laden and George Bush, who together have the blood of thousands on their hands in pursuit of their Missions From God. Reactions to cinema or computer entertainment have a miniscule impact on the planet by comparison.

Religion is not a scapegoat - it's two biggest representatives are fundementally defective theologies which will encourage the deaths of millions over the next few centuries, and all its subscribers are however nonchalantly doing their bit to keep the fear and repression that is required alive and kicking.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Au contraire Austin, I have provided proof that God does not exist.

Au contraire PR3SSUR3, you have no proof that God doesn't exist.

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
It might be idealistic that one could exist, but not rational.

That's your opinion, I think it's rational.


Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
(of course the millions of 'bad' do not religiously consider themselves as so, which demonstrates one of the awesome flaws within the practice).


-The religion-(Islam) Clearly says Do Not Kill.

-The people-(Al Qaeda) killed people.

Looks like the flaw isn't in the religion, but with the people.


Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
That religious destruction occurs on a much larger scale than film or computer game violence is hardly irrelevant.


It's irrelevant when used to say the two can't be compared. It's true that it's a larger scale than film, but film can still be used as an example.

[Haunted]

Austin... I'm going to write a song about you. Give me some time to come up with the lyrics.:D

Anyway... I think that your counter points were very sound.

Not to rip into you Pr3ssur3, but I do think that your equation was made up. You still haven't given us the source of that equation, nor how the results disprove that there is no deity of any kind.

I wanted to be a smart-ass and say, "Yes, Pr3ssur3, your right. You've proven there is no God, per se. Now we know there is no "God" only the Goddess. However that would be not only rude, but counter productive as well. :D

[PR3SSUR3]

The Islamic interpretation of the sixth Commandment is ominous: "And do not kill anybody that Allah has prohibited except when you have a right to kill" (6:151), "....anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or
horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people" (5:32), "You shall not take life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law" (6:151-153).

In their Holy War, Islamic extremists are - in their minds - rightfully killing as they seek justice against their enemies. It's difficult to argue with - it's all right there in their sacred book of things to do. The infidels can be killed as enemies of Islam. Refer back to my lengthy post of several pages ago for further examples of encouragement of violence against those who do not support Allah.

I've already explained how a violent film (or computer game) is devised as fictional entertainment instead of a set of strict and deadly serious rules from a divine source. The bigger and more profound the declaration, the stronger its consequences. There is no comparison - you may as well cite the regular consumption of fast food as a similar reason why people have killed.

Also, refer back to my calculated proof that God does not exist in case you missed it. My proof is proven in that it demonstrates that God does not exist - it is functioning right now this moment. It has already been explained that the equation is demonstrated in its simplest form. It can of course be denied, but then with their blind faith the religious are doomed to live in constant denial anyway, so there you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1kqqMXWEFs

[Haunted]

Here's the deal... One of my colleagues in the Religious Studies Dept. was a double major in Math and Religious Studies. He is also an Occultist. Oh... and he has an excellent grasp of quantum physics. The dude, Morgan, is a mathematical genius, and never told me of any sort of equation of any type that "disproves" the existance of any deity.

Math, which draws it's real history from Aristotilean and other Greek philosphers was never intended to disprove God or anything of that nature. Math simply does not have the ability to disprove Goddess or God, so either you identify the source of that equation or I'm still going to assume that you made it up or that it came from some bullshit artist more luney toons than even the most ridiculous fundamentalist Christian who saw Jesus in their macaroni.

[tarcher80]

I have followed your entire debate up untill this point... I have read a lot of good points and counter points, on both sides... However, at this point you should agree to disagree b/c there will be no conclusion, no resolution. I see two sides that "seem" grounded in rational thought; two sides that agree that this universe holds many truths and "proven" facts. This subject is not one of them and that's a fact.... But of course someone will say that's my opinion.

[AUSTIN316426808]

That's just your opinion, haha..ok anyway...


It's just something interesting to discuss, we're well aware that nobody's changing their mind.

[AUSTIN316426808]

@Haunted- I wouldn't give that a second thought. You can't prove God doesn't exist and you can't prove that he does. Unless of course he just decides to go...''Hey Mike, whadda ya say we go on down?'', the clouds open up...ect ect.

[PR3SSUR3]

The source of my equation is myself. Mathematical discipline considers quantity, structure, space and change, and from logical reasoning and abstraction I have forumlated a conjecture that noone has been able to disprove. The continued lack of God proves my equation is indeed correct, and accordingly it has become a theorem.

I think Austin's last point illustrates this quite nicely, and tarcher is aware there is likely to be no further give or take from either side of the fence in light of this revelation.

[The Flayed One]

Indeed. It's come to the point where it's almost like arguing with some people about the moon landing. We have eye witness testimonies, recording & pictures. Those who truly don't want to believe it happened, never will.

[_____V_____]

Thats the reason why I stopped posting. Seemed useless to argue over the same points repeatedly over and over again with stuff already proved, but being argued for arguing basis, and to prove the dominance of intellectual superiority.

I can only feel pity for the computer keyboards of all the parties involved in this. Poor things have taken a pounding!

http://www.epica-awards.org/assets/epica/2005/winners/print/images800/16059%20%20%20DOVE%20Half%20Empty%20Half%20Full.jp g

[The STE]

point of order: I never argued that God does exist

[Haunted]

My point of order: I just wanted the dude to back up his claims. I mean, how do I know he can even add 2(2+4) + 9(7-3)=?

I don't give a flying fuck what he believes in as far as religion is concerned. I just don't people making shit up and trying to pass it off as fact.

[The STE]

I think that was actually the point he was trying to make

[Haunted]

Who, V?

Oh. Shit. Sorry.

Well...



THE END

[_____V_____]

Originally posted by Haunted
My point of order: I just wanted the dude to back up his claims. I mean, how do I know he can even add 2(2+4) + 9(7-3)=?

I don't give a flying fuck what he believes in as far as religion is concerned. I just don't people making shit up and trying to pass it off as fact.

Thats the thing. Enuff genuine points were given for proving that people, and not religion, are the pioneers of religious violence.

In turn what do we have? Disproval of it on the basis of a bs equation given without any explanation or theory on which it is based, and automatically induced that the equation is proved? by whom? and how?

and backed up by what? name-calling? physical insults to a lady who is debating it with an intellectual basis? pathetic!

Others are supposed to blindly accept it, because of that? Alrite I ll give an equation too :-


Sqrt(cos³a - 3) -Sqrt( cosec² c + 1) tan³d + 1
----------------------------------------------------------
2459(sin³a x cot b³) 7583(sin c x cos³d)



There...God exists! Now prove me wrong!



Seriously...proving each other right or wrong wont stop whats happening in the world today. The violence will continue...innocent people will continue to die or be killed by others, not only in name of religion but in name of various other things...

nobody's gonna come running to the comp, log on to the Net, surf to HDC, open this thread, read it, then run back to their people and tell em to stop it all...

This thread can continue for eternity, but it wont change the world one bit. All it can do is refine some HDC members' thoughts who read it, either in the former's case or in the latter's. So, its a waste of time to argue stuff over just arguing sake.

[The STE]

Originally posted by _____V_____
Sqrt(cos³a - 3) -Sqrt( cosec² c + 1) tan³d + 1
----------------------------------------------------------
2459(sin³a x cot b³) 7583(sin c x cos³d)

you fool, you got the numerator and denominator reversed! All you've done is prove that dogs exist!

[zwoti]

Originally posted by _____V_____


Sqrt(cos³a - 3) -Sqrt( cosec² c + 1) tan³d + 1
----------------------------------------------------------
2459(sin³a x cot b³) 7583(sin c x cos³d)




missing a few symbols there aren't you

*
√

[_____V_____]

lol...it was a "on-the-moment" equation guys...:o

I myself dont know what the solution to that one is...

but if it proves that dogs exist, like Sam said, I m immensely surprised! :eek:


:D

[PR3SSUR3]

Bravo, bravo.

Just to reiterate my theorem is presently, continually and eternally proved until the actual developments that the nature of the equation from _____V_____ merely pretends to prove. No God has been forthcoming in any shape or form, and the logic involved is stark and straightforward.

Also, 'physical'(?) insults began elsewhere instead of from this poster (a stinkard? ag!) :D.

So while this thread might indeed be read and digested by the passing curious in future, I'm wondering if your most profound entry might be at all taken seriously in its general wrongness from start to finish.

[Dante'sInferno]

It's official,we don't exist.










NOW LET'S THROW A FUCKING PARTY!WOOOOOOO...

[Haunted]

Imagine an equation that proves that we don't exist. What would happen? Poof! Everything disapears.

[Dante'sInferno]

Originally posted by Haunted
Imagine an equation that proves that we don't exist. What would happen? Poof! Everything disapears. That's right






I can't talk to you on the account of,i just dissapeared.:D

[_____V_____]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Just to reiterate my theorem is presently, continually and eternally proved until the actual developments that the nature of the equation from _____V_____ merely pretends to prove. No God has been forthcoming in any shape or form, and the logic involved is stark and straightforward.

I'm wondering if your most profound entry might be at all taken seriously in its general wrongness from start to finish.


proved? how and by who? someone is delusional here...

My post was a satirical comparison to your outlandish equation and your claim of automatic proof. Thats what me, H & Sam have been asking again and again and again. Prove your equation, if you can. Cuz its just a jumbled mess of mathematical characters to anyone who reads it.

[PR3SSUR3]

By my theorem - print out a hard copy as a reminder.

It is not likely such an achievement would appear conventional even to mathematically erudite minds.

The proof that it is correct continues today.

Rouse me if there are any occurrences to the contrary.

:cool:

[Haunted]

Pr3ssur3 said "gerneral wrongness from start to finish." Heheheheheh! That's a good'n At least V's, equation was a joke.

Pr3ssur3, you would have been wiser to have at least said, "I saw that equation in some old science book I have, instead of admitting that you made it up yourself. Because now... I'm afraid that we have no reason, no compuncture but to hold that you are, as was originally stated at the beginning of this argument, making things up as you go along. (I don't want to say that you're full of shit, because that's mean, and you could just be delusional, in which case it wouldn't necessarily be your fault).

[PR3SSUR3]

You woke me up for this?

Compuncture?

Correct use of this noun would have been compunction.

You can't just make Gods and words up as you go along.

[_____V_____]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
By my theorem - print out a hard copy as a reminder.

It is not likely such an achievement would appear conventional even to mathematically erudite minds.

The proof that it is correct continues today.

Rouse me if there are any occurrences to the contrary.

:cool:

what proof? I m starting to think you really ARE delusional like I was thinking last nite...

\/(21) x 76t/92832.23 (52/32+a+d) (x=y2 b12.09023) x 2323.23t |z| = ea1.999 + x dx/x+b - tan(x) sin(232) = cos(23.5ea) x rnd3 [a+23b] + \/(16-a2) n(6) x 23.2 [te3], 232.23/23(a+d-e) = 663.6 |abd(2)| (+ rnd3)

That was your equation many posts ago, which subsequently was NEVER proved by you. For all anyone knows, its a BS one like the one I posted in satirical response.

Read your replies again to Sam's queries for the proof :-

http://www.horror.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22829&perpage=15&pagenumber=6

And if you think responses such as

Now, are you angry because you cannot accept your mutated lack of penis?

or posting an icon like :cool:, will make you look infinitely more smarter, intellectually clever, and above everyone else...then I really pity you.

You have continued a convo with replies which progressively made little to no sense, and based your counter-arguments on a BS equation and more BS theories. It was interesting stuff till bout the 3rd page of this thread, but since then your replies have gone downhill rapidly to such a point that they dont make ANY sense anymore.

Feeding one's own ego doesnt make one look better, it actually makes one look way, way worse.

End of my posting in this thread.

[PR3SSUR3]

Thank God for that.


3~p

[Haunted]

You know, in looking at that equation again, I don't think there's a solution. I don't even think that's real math, and Goddess knows that I hate math.

Someone on this forum has schizophrenia and it ain't me.
Correct use of this noun would have been compunction.

Holy triple tequila sunrise, Batman, he's right about something!

It would appear that I am so overwhelmed by your capacity for absolute bullshit that I'm making technical errors.

Must... escape... stupid... thread... before... I... become... an idiot... myself...

[PR3SSUR3]

Hmmm.... absolute bullshit, says the lady currently tripping over herself about ouija boards, ESP and magical photographs in response to the recent disclosure. Relax - you can still have faith in all that stuff if you want to. The delusional by nature have a tough time with mathematics/logic/sense as it is without trying to understand my immense theorem.

And I'm betting you decided to go back and spell 'schizophrenia' correctly? (If my PC somehow 'burst', would it have a compuncture? :D).

You'll escape the thread... in time.

:p

[Haunted]

I actually know how to spell schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Let it be a running joke that I fucked a word. We'll all be laughing at you for making up an equation that has no solution. Which is worse? At least I have the ability and humility to admit when I'm wrong. Furthermore, I don't make shit up as I go along. My comments on ESP, Ouija boards, Witchcraft, etc are based on experience. Logic and reason are great, but experience kicks their ass every time.

If you were a tenth as smart as you are deluded enough to believe you are, you would leave the thread instead of continuing a conversation with someone like me. The reason that I keep going is that I just can't help finding out what kind of ridiculous shit you're going to pull out of your ass next. It's tantamount to reading the funny papers.

[The STE]

Calvin & Hobbes >>>>>> This thread

[PR3SSUR3]

Calvin and Hobbes' world isn't too far off the mark, considering the subject matter.

Whether you fuck words or entire paragraphs - even posts - it shouldn't be referential to the superior smarts and articulation you announced the other day whatsoever. So no running joke.

A solution to there being no God? But there is no problem. Perhaps you mean a solution to the equation itself... but of course the answer is within the result of the equation, i.e. that there is no God. I'm tempted to propose it is 42, but then I think you might have seen The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I think perhaps you have hit something on the head yourself in that many people want to search constantly for reason and meaning behind existence.

Which bring us nicely back to Calvin and Hobbes:-

"Why are we here?"

"Because we were born."

"No, I mean here on Earth."

"Because The Earth can support life."

".....forget it."

"I will."



:cool:

[The STE]

"MOOOOOOMM! HEY MOM!"
"Calvin, I'm in the other room, don't shout! If you want something, come here and ask!"
*walks into the house*
"I stepped in dog doo, where's the hose?"

[filmmaker2]

This thread is gay.

[PR3SSUR3]

As gay as a felineophelic obsession with cats?

[filmmaker2]

Uh.......yes.

;)

[Haunted]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Calvin and Hobbes' world isn't too far off the mark, considering the subject matter.

Whether you fuck words or entire paragraphs - even posts - it shouldn't be referential to the superior smarts and articulation you announced the other day whatsoever. So no running joke.

A solution to there being no God? But there is no problem. Perhaps you mean a solution to the equation itself... but of course the answer is within the result of the equation, i.e. that there is no God. I'm tempted to propose it is 42, but then I think you might have seen The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.




I realized that I mentioned your posts being the same as reading the funny pages, but using Calvin and Hobbs to back up your claims to there being no deity is... well in a word... dumb.

The problem I have with your equation is that you made it up. Besides that, math can't prove that there is no god/s or whatever. To say that it can is also...dumb.

To quote Douglas Adams (mayherestinpeace) and use the ever hackneyed response of 42 even while joking is old hat and dumb.

I must have given you quite the tummy ache with my little boo-boo the other day. However, you're retarded posts that are just stinky with bullshit and delusions of false grandeur have provided many of us with days, and I mean days of laughter.

We're laughing at you not with you. If you lived in my state, I'd find you, and pack you off to the state loony bin to collect my fifty bucks.

However, since you're like one of those chihuahuas named Tinkerbell that will latch on to some one's pant leg and won't let go, I'm going to be forced to kick you across the room.

A Day in the Life of Pr3ssur3

A dark smelly basement filled with cobwebs and roaches. The only light comes from a computer screen. Beside the computer is a filthy bed and a bookshelf holding comic books, a few novels by Issac Asimov, a copy of Aritstotle's Poetics with a bookmark indicating that the reader hasn't gotten past the first chapter, and a single high school math primer. Sitting at the computer is a filthy teenage boy. Every now and again he jibbers something to himself and laughs hysterically.

"It's brilliant!" he says! typing in what he considers to be an over-ride code to the Pentagon's secret database.

Up above, a small slat opens at the base of the basement door and a tray with a paper plate of tuna fish and a stryofoam cup of water is passed under it.

The boy doesn't notice it. He is reading "Access Denied" for the eighth time.

*Gives the peace symbol and heads for other threads*

[Dante'sInferno]

Originally posted by Haunted
I realized that I mentioned your posts being the same as reading the funny pages, but using Calvin and Hobbs to back up your claims to there being no deity is... well in a word... dumb.

The problem I have with your equation is that you made it up. Besides that, math can't prove that there is no god/s or whatever. To say that it can is also...dumb.

To quote Douglas Adams (mayherestinpeace) and use the ever hackneyed response of 42 even while joking is old hat and dumb.

I must have given you quite the tummy ache with my little boo-boo the other day. However, you're retarded posts that are just stinky with bullshit and delusions of false grandeur have provided many of us with days, and I mean days of laughter.

We're laughing at you not with you. If you lived in my state, I'd find you, and pack you off to the state loony bin to collect my fifty bucks.

However, since you're like one of those chihuahuas named Tinkerbell that will latch on to some one's pant leg and won't let go, I'm going to be forced to kick you across the room.

A Day in the Life of Pr3ssur3

A dark smelly basement filled with cobwebs and roaches. The only light comes from a computer screen. Beside the computer is a filthy bed and a bookshelf holding comic books, a few novels by Issac Asimov, a copy of Aritstotle's poetics with a bookmark indicating that the reader hasn't gotten past the first chapter, and a single high school math primer. Sitting at the computer is a filthy teenage boy. Every now and again he jibbers something to himself and laughs hysterically.

"It's brilliant!" he says! typing in whay he considers to be an over-ride code to the Pentagon's secret database.

Up above, a small slat opens at the base of the basement door and a tray with a paper plate of tuna fish and a stryofoam cup of water is passed under it.

The boy doesn't notice it. He is reading "Access Denied" for the eighth ten.

*Gives the peace symbol and heads for other threads* Very creative,I now see why you are a writer.

[PR3SSUR3]

The six classic stages*:-

1. argument crumble
2. declaration of leaving thread
3. clever personal attacks
4. bold declaration of leaving thread
5. negative fictional characterisation of the opposite side
6. bolder declaration of leaving thread

(*note: sometimes these may occur in a different order, and intellectual superiority claims might soon earn a place)

Every theorem has a conjecture, which must start somewhere. In this case it was born from considering how to provide the proof that was demanded. It seems the challenge was more than met.

With Calvin and Hobbes I was thinking more about the imaginary friend theme, or rather idealistic imaginations in general.

Which boo-boo you on about by the way?

Bugger, too late - she's really gone this ten.


:D

[urgeok]

i will immediately get my ass back out of here after this post .. but i felt compelled to 'contribute' to this thread.

Pressure is without a doubt the brightest guy on this forum.
no one here can cold a candle to this guys intelligence and elliquence.
you could publish this guys posts in a collection and it would be better written than most things i see in print.

the suggestion that he is anything less than brilliant is pathetic.
most people here cant even understand his sense of humor or the points he is trying to make.

not 'getting it' doesnt make him the stupid one.

I dont personally agree with everything he says ... (but for the record - i do align perfectly with his particular point of view on the religious issue)
but i can fucking well recognize a big brilliant brain when i see one and this guy is fucking smarter than most/if not all of us put together.

this isnt a fan boy love letter - i'm just stating what to me is a pretty obvious fact.

If i could write half as well as this guy I'd be pursuing a career as an author.

this guy does not need me to defend him ... (he's unflappable and has been playing with most of the people in this thread just for a laugh)

it reminds me of the other time i spoke up because some people were actually ignorant enough to acuse murderdoll of being stupid (when she's another extremely bright person - one of the brightest on the board)



ah fuck i dont even know why i wasted my time with this

[Zero]

eeekkkk - urge is in general forum, quick get a broom!!!


the only question i have is would urge come up here to defend me from the slings and arrows of outrageous posters? (ok, i already know the answer)

(on - and for the record - the smartest person on this forum is Newb - if he could only stay sober long enough to finish that whole 'string theory thing')

as for this thread - its a bit silly - we all know who god is. . .

Hanumen - the Monkey God!!

[Haunted]

Personally, I vote that zwoti is the smartest person on the forum. Having held many conversations with him, I think his intelligence could baffle everyone of us, and I don't just mean about films either.

I've said some shit to MurderDoll, and I apologized for every single one of them. I said, to her, that I nothing but respect for her, and I was sorry for acting and saying otherwise.

The idea of Theasm/Theism is entirely based on opinion and cannot be argued based on fact. Even Albert Einstein believed in God, but that's not important.

There are two reasons why people have been so up in arms about P's posts:

1. He resulted to disgusting insults. That has not, nor never will demonstrate intelligence of any kind whatsoever.

2. Instead of being diplomatic, patient, and willing to help members of this discussion understand his perspective, he has been arrogant, self-aggrandizing and deliberately aloof.

S and I (if I may speak for him) don't give a fuck what other people believe. We weren't arguing to convert. Our point was that no one has the right to say that religion is "bad" a la Karl Marx's comment that "Religion is the oppiate of the people (masses?). That's not entirely true, nor is it fair. No one has the right to discount the experiences of other people simply because it doesn't fall neatly into the black and white boxed pattern of so-called "logical reality."

The reason I'm out of this conversation is because I realize that if you want to believe that way, fine. It doesn't matter to me. It doesn't affect my life. Sitting here, day to day, trying to make someone understand that there's more colors than the afore mentioned black and white is useless.

If you want to make fun of me for practicing Witchcraft, go ahead. Who are you? You're just a person. If you want to tell a man that claims he saw the spirit of his dead father that he was only having a hallucination, you do it, even though you could very well be totally wrong.

Jive on, dude.

[filmmaker2]

Before anyone gets excited about Urge posting on this thread, you might as well know that there was a sizable cash outlay involved. That's right, he was PAID to make those comments. Furthermore, I was the one who paid him.

[Zero]

Originally posted by filmmaker2
Before anyone gets excited about Urge posting on this thread, you might as well know that there was a sizable cash outlay involved. That's right, he was PAID to make those comments. Furthermore, I was the one who paid him.

where can i submit my bill for comments made??

[filmmaker2]

1616 Ninebeers Lane
Pootieville, Bananaland 2253426287

[The STE]

Originally posted by urgeok
i will immediately get my ass back out of here after this post .. but i felt compelled to 'contribute' to this thread.

Pressure is without a doubt the brightest guy on this forum.
no one here can cold a candle to this guys intelligence and elliquence.
you could publish this guys posts in a collection and it would be better written than most things i see in print.

the suggestion that he is anything less than brilliant is pathetic.
most people here cant even understand his sense of humor or the points he is trying to make.

not 'getting it' doesnt make him the stupid one.

I dont personally agree with everything he says ... (but for the record - i do align perfectly with his particular point of view on the religious issue)
but i can fucking well recognize a big brilliant brain when i see one and this guy is fucking smarter than most/if not all of us put together.

this isnt a fan boy love letter - i'm just stating what to me is a pretty obvious fact.

If i could write half as well as this guy I'd be pursuing a career as an author.

this guy does not need me to defend him ... (he's unflappable and has been playing with most of the people in this thread just for a laugh)

it reminds me of the other time i spoke up because some people were actually ignorant enough to acuse murderdoll of being stupid (when she's another extremely bright person - one of the brightest on the board)



ah fuck i dont even know why i wasted my time with this

Not only that, but Pr3ssur3 makes Ghandi look like a child pornographer. Reading one of Pr3ssur3s posts is like looking into the face of the creator and hearing him say "You are my most wonderous creation!" Oh, except Pr3ssur3 disproved the creater LOLWTF!