fucking terrifying

[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.