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.

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:)

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

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.

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 guess i'm a new generation hippie...or something.:confused:









:D ,hehehehehe

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

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.

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.

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!

Yes!

**applauding our leader Zero**

http://www.webdeveloper.com/animatio...les/monkey.gif


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

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



:D

Same here....this bloody machine

: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

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.

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


;)

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.

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.

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.

Religion...
 

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.

Re: Religion...
 

What do you mean?

Re: Religion...
 

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:

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!

;)

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

Re: Re: Religion...
 

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:)

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.

Scientology
 

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.