fucking terrifying
 

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

I can't get past the title screen.

That was intense...

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.

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

that was pretty fucked up!

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

Charles Manson studied scientology when he was in prison once.

just thought i'd throw that out there.

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.

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

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...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

+

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


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.


Again, generalizations. Not everybody who is Christian thinks the bible is literally true.

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.

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.

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.

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-c...ex-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.


;)

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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)

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.

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.

Got To Leave but
 

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

- 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

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?


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.

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.

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.