Religion versus Fiction

[XenoFish]

I honestly don't think there is much value left in this thread. That is solely my opinion however. 

[+joc]

I'll second that!

Edited May 29, 2019 by joc

[+joc]

2 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

GENTLEMEN,

How about this: you assume that I want to hear your thoughts, and I promise not to give a reply, only responding with an in-house emoji?

Unless the crime of thinking atheists are irreligious (and I _did_ apologise for making assumptions yesterday) has robbed me of your brotherhood forever?

The only proviso I'd make is the same one I asked for in the original post --that we focus less on the idea that religion is some ultimate form of oppression (which, let's face it, is a very old debate).

Eh?

I personally don't care what you think, say or do...

[Farmer77]

On 5/23/2019 at 4:50 PM, Carlos Allende said:

Look at it this way: no airport or train station has a tiny church affixed to the side, but they _all_ have shelves upon shelves of generic thrillers.

Not a major point but many if not most major airports have chapels

A Brief History of Airport Chapels

[+Sherapy]

On 5/24/2019 at 5:49 AM, XenoFish said:

A lot of that actually comes from believers trying to validate their beliefs. Which in my eyes tosses out that whole, "I have faith" aspect of belief.

Exactly, if one does have faith they wouldn’t have much to say. They have faith only in as much as they can be validated.

And, what is I have faith mean, basically that one thinks they know of a reality that cannot be evidenced any other way

but by their interpretation of an experience. 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

31 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

And, what is I have faith mean, basically that one thinks they know of a reality that cannot be evidenced any other way

but by their interpretation of an experience. 

I think at this point after hearing a zillion different sentences started by believers with 'Faith is...' I look at it just as, usually redundantly, saying "I believe".  "I believe because I have faith" just means "I believe because I believe".  Profound... 

"It's something you know deep that is just true" - that's not faith, that's just a strong belief.  "Faith means 'trust'" - that's redundant, of course if you believe it you trust it to be true and vice versa.  "Faith is hope that something is true" - we have a word for that already, it's called 'hope'.

[Mr Walker]

  On 28/05/2019 at 4:25 PM, Mr Walker said:

 

Pure fantasy has a specific purpose ie escapist entertainment , but can also contain allegories, lessons from history, and social commentary 

Then you have any form of historic fiction which contains real life  material from the past, describing how people lived and thought. 

In the last two days i watched Churchill   Bumblebee Aquaman and Summer coda  Two of them had me in tears, the other two laughing in joy and wonder 

I read 4 westerns, the latest Janet Evanovich novel, and the latest Harlan Coben  I also read  4 newspapers, two magazines, several comics, and a lot of stuff online about various topics, from military power to metal detecting  i watched QI, escape form the city, would i lie to you,  Joanna lumley's the silk road and a few other things like the news and current affairs and landline  

I think individuals tend to prefer what satisfies their own greatest needs, and gives the deepest emotional response, from education to entertainment  

Man alive, Mr Walker, those are more or less the exact bit of fiction I'd go for if I had even a quarter of the time (except for 'Summer Coda', never heard of it). Harlan Coban, though, is AWESOME, and in my opinion the only worthy successor to Elmore Leonard. Is Bumblebee any good?

I agree that people need fiction to bond with their inner drives and emotions. My thinking, though, is why don't atheists _or atheist-like creatures, Dan_ have pause for thought in this:

The greatest skill of any writer is to give a minimum, highly economical amount of biographical data for their characters, and it be so compelling that a workable model of that character then appears fully formed in the reader (or watcher's) mind thereafter. And yet. Look at our biggest holy books. Their narratives hit the ground running. We don't need to relate to Jesus as a human. He doesn't make small talk. There are no sub-plots. There's no breathless action sequences. The Koran has fewer 'story-like' elements even than that. It's a source of fascination for me that atheists _or atheist-like creatures_ don't automatically take a backwards step and say, "Well, I suspect these books are (intentionally or unintentionally) manipulative bits of fiction, and yet ...if they are, they're unlike any fiction we've had since. This is some kind of legitimate psychological mechanism. I'm going to stay quiet for a while".

Come on, people. Give me an ensemble drama where the disparate characters fit together as economically and have as definitive an effect as the Disciples in the New Testament. Star Wars? Well, no because that story is never going to end is it? Disney is just going to give us generation after generation of _slightly_ different Sith lords and _slightly_ different Jedi, until there's no more dramatic impact left. Watchmen? Dr Manhattan is more high-concept than Jesus.   

 

 

 

 

Summer Coda is an Australian film set on the fruit blocks at Mildura. Well acted and well constructed A story of loss and love 

Bumblebee was perhaps the simplest and  best of the Transformer series, since the original. Mostly for young people, but then i like a lot of those sorts of stories 

Certainly characterisation is one of the most critical elements of a story.  Good characters can make even a poor plot/ script come to life, and get you to invest in a book or  a film.

Perhaps  my all time favourite books, are the dragon lance series, and my favourite film is the princess bride.

In both cases characterisation makes them.

Lucas deliberately built star wars  (and the force) around the ancient meme which is also found in the bible, and thus it resonates with many people who don't ever realise why   

You know, cowboys in the west often carried bibles, not just because the y were religious, but because the bible contained so much interesting reading, story telling, and human interest. Plus it was cheap and accessible. 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

On 29/05/2019 at 6:29 AM, danydandan said:

I get your point. But my point is that we aren't psychic and we can't read your mind, thus we can only respond to the words you are writing. These words are established so why or how, would anyone know you're actually trying to state something other than the words you're typing. This is your mistake, in my opinion.

People generally think in words, by association/imagery. But I really don't know, other than what Dr Steve Novella says!

What do you mean retreaty? Can you elaborate more on this? 

But what the difference between Jack Reacher and Jesus? 

While there are many similarities, including a disregard for material possessions and a love of people, Jack is  a person who solves problems with both his mind and his fists. Christ was a lot less physical  

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think at this point after hearing a zillion different sentences started by believers with 'Faith is...' I look at it just as, usually redundantly, saying "I believe".  "I believe because I have faith" just means "I believe because I believe".  Profound... 

"It's something you know deep that is just true" - that's not faith, that's just a strong belief.  "Faith means 'trust'" - that's redundant, of course if you believe it you trust it to be true and vice versa.  "Faith is hope that something is true" - we have a word for that already, it's called 'hope'.

No.  One can believe for many reasons.

Faith is one reason, but faith is constructing a hope in something for which there are no physical evidences.  Faith is not belief itself, but one reason why people construct beliefs.

Eg having faith in my wife's love for me, is not quite the same as believing my wife loves me.  

Indeed, faith and hope, in general terms, are synonymous.

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No.  One can believe for many reasons.

Faith is one reason, but faith is constructing a hope in something for which there are no physical evidences.  Faith is not belief itself, but one reason why people construct beliefs.

Eg having faith in my wife's love for me, is not quite the same as believing my wife loves me.  

Indeed, faith and hope, in general terms, are synonymous.

I fail to see how you are negating or adding to LG’s point with your example.

In the context of a relationship, hope and faith really don’t come into it, because you ( generalized) don’t build a union on hoping for the best or having faith your partner will do his/ her part.  A relationship is about earning one’s love and trust, we are looking at the actual evidence that one’s words and actions add up. Credibility and follow through are everything. 

I wouldn't believe my husband loved me or I wouldn’t have faith he loved me either, 

I would have evidence, therefore I would state my husband loves me,  how would I know this because he has demonstrated this with his behavior. 

If this criteria was used in the god construct more would be probably be Agnostics or Atheists.. LOL 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Sherapy

[psyche101]

On 5/29/2019 at 6:15 AM, Carlos Allende said:

OK, DDD. Don't feel bad about sitting this one out. But regarding whether I abide by strict dictionary definitions, I admit that I don't. I don't come from an academic background, and to be honest, that stuff makes my skin crawl. I mean, that episode of Blackadder that featured Dr Johnson was _very_ funny, but that's the extent of my interest. For what it's worth, however, I fully take receipt of your stats about most Atheists (why the capital?) being religious -- but are you sure this is necessarily a good thing in terms of intellectual reasoning? 'Religion' is a bit close to 'spirituality' is a bit close to 'sacredness' and on and on it goes. People don't think in words, they think in _teeming, tangential nuances._ Isn't that what consciousness is? (Please don't quote me a definition of consciousness, mate). Plus, your distinction between atheism and religion (presumably versus God?) is a bit retreat-y, isn't it? As humans, whether we want to live or die, we're all about being and nothingness. I don't know if God exists, but it's not hard for me to conceive an ubermind that transcends conventional definitions and logic (some would say He necessarily _needs_ to). And in my opinion, it's OK for a prospective god to not care about nuance in most things, but he _needs_ to pay attention to nuance in religion, the supernatural, quantum physics, anything that gets us a ticket out of this crazy hell-hole.

In summary, though, you're right, I've probably made some assumptions somewhere along the line -- in doing so making an 'Ass' out of 'u' and 'me' _(highfives ghost of mousey-faced English teacher)_

Sorry again, X and Dan. Come to think of it, do atheists actually exist _anywhere?_ This whole brouhaha could be for nothing. That would be ironic.

Ain't seen no TED talk, but I did listen to the audiobook of The God Delusion, read by Leela from Dr Who (who I actually _met_ once -- she's still got it, dads).

I appreciate the appeal of a natural universe that negates the need for God. In my opinion, though, having 'read' the God Delusion and watched some of his Youtube output, RD comes across as just a picker-of-low-hanging-fruit. For a privileged university-bred Westerner, picking holes in cruel, dogmatic religions and centuries-old holy books is no big achievement in my book. It's passive-aggressive. It's doubling back when you could be going forward --but then again, I could be being unfair to him. I'll be sure to watch the TED lecture(s) when I get five. 

In my opinion, if you can't get a conception of the meaning of life from theoretical quantum physics, there's only one other place you can go. The Communist Manifesto. But that was another debate from another time. AIN'T NO RABBIT HOLE LIKE A CARLOS RABBIT HOLE.

 

Man alive, Mr Walker, those are more or less the exact bit of fiction I'd go for if I had even a quarter of the time (except for 'Summer Coda', never heard of it). Harlan Coban, though, is AWESOME, and in my opinion the only worthy successor to Elmore Leonard. Is Bumblebee any good?

I agree that people need fiction to bond with their inner drives and emotions. My thinking, though, is why don't atheists _or atheist-like creatures, Dan_ have pause for thought in this:

The greatest skill of any writer is to give a minimum, highly economical amount of biographical data for their characters, and it be so compelling that a workable model of that character then appears fully formed in the reader (or watcher's) mind thereafter. And yet. Look at our biggest holy books. Their narratives hit the ground running. We don't need to relate to Jesus as a human. He doesn't make small talk. There are no sub-plots. There's no breathless action sequences. The Koran has fewer 'story-like' elements even than that. It's a source of fascination for me that atheists _or atheist-like creatures_ don't automatically take a backwards step and say, "Well, I suspect these books are (intentionally or unintentionally) manipulative bits of fiction, and yet ...if they are, they're unlike any fiction we've had since. This is some kind of legitimate psychological mechanism. I'm going to stay quiet for a while".

Come on, people. Give me an ensemble drama where the disparate characters fit together as economically and have as definitive an effect as the Disciples in the New Testament. Star Wars? Well, no because that story is never going to end is it? Disney is just going to give us generation after generation of _slightly_ different Sith lords and _slightly_ different Jedi, until there's no more dramatic impact left. Watchmen? Dr Manhattan is more high-concept than Jesus.   

Certainly I'm projecting on to Atheists _(and atheist-like creatures)._ Why would that be a problem? If _anyone_ enters a public debate about one of the most fundamental areas of human life, surely they WANT to epitomize their opinions? And all humans are flawed some way or other. Don't you think? 

OK, R. Maybe I have. If you think it's worth it (and I concede it may not be), perhaps you could give me your idea of a strong, resilient, intellectually _vital_ atheism? Or just send me a link if you've got one pre-prepared. My homework from @psyche101 is to watch Dawkin's TED lectures. Will that do?

Personally, I can't derive any comfort from Heaven, either as a concept or in the event it turns out to be a real phenomenon. I've been thru too much in life and it's thoroughly messed up my hopes and dreams. But that's not to say that there aren't plenty more people out there who've not been _completely_ messed up by life, and they've got profound doubts, but they still think Heaven is possible --either as a real place or a transcendental idea.

But those dreams _did_ occur in as much as they were an apparently 3D, first-person, uncontrollable environment, correct? This is what this post was fundamentally supposed to be about: thinking about _anything_ is a slippery slope. In our minds, we either go one way or another, based on a whim. Say you're trapped in a room with an alien teenager, or maybe it's a kinda 'Dogtooth' scenario, and there's two books. He's very suggestible, but that's cool. One book is 'Valis' by Philip K Dick (or y'know, something of that variety, maybe 'Hard to Be a God' by Sturgatsky Brothers, or maybe something by Stanislaw Lem). The other book is The Bible. Your pal reads both books, but he's nuts for the Bible. It's all he wants to talk about. At what point do you explain that The Bible is used by billions of people as a religion, but Valis isn't? How much effort do you put into explaining the distinction? Do you just describe _the harm_ that Christianity has done, historically? He doesn't care about that. All he wants to do is talk about the cool book he's just read.

 

Let me know when have got through the TED talks. 

I don't see anything wrong with Dawkins approach. Dispelling older ancient myths seems the perfect place to be introduced to discrepancies of religion. Theists like William Lane Craig are still spreading that awful basic nonsense. Why would one overstep basics when discussing such a wide ranging and indoctrinatal subject? A great many still see Adam and eve as a literal interpretation of how man came to be. 

[Golden Duck]

On 29/05/2019 at 6:59 AM, danydandan said:

...

But what the difference between Jack Reacher and Jesus? 

Jesus doesn't think he's Jack Reacher?

[Carlos Allende]

23 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I honestly don't think there is much value left in this thread. That is solely my opinion however. 

I dunno, XF, I thought that was quite a solid question, and a pretty neat distillation of what this thread was _meant_ to be about b4 the whole thing got mired and swamped:

 Yet all too many writers use only tropes and cliches. I'm pretty sure the number of people reading crappy thrillers outweighs the number of people who go to church. The number of TV channels devoted to bad films and shows _easily_ outweighs the number of religious channels. And so what do you suppose the average atheist would say about that? Do they think, compared to a writer, a religious leader somehow has a darker agenda than just vying for people's time and money? Surely that agenda would necessarily be _profound_ and intellectually satisfying on a transgressive level?

But, yeah. Everything's cool. 

[Carlos Allende]

21 hours ago, joc said:

I personally don't care what you think, say or do...

 ...because, there's no such thing as free will?

[+Liquid Gardens]

27 minutes ago, Carlos Allende said:

The number of TV channels devoted to bad films and shows _easily_ outweighs the number of religious channels. And so what do you suppose the average atheist would say about that?

I'm not sure if the question is that 'solid' and it's definitely no moral dilemma for any atheist as it stands.  I really think you need to specify exactly what qualities you think the average atheist has.  All atheists don't believe in god, and that is all we can say they have in common.  You mentioned earlier that you will use a broad brush sometimes and that's fine, but you have to specify what additional qualities you are adding to 'atheist' if you're going to do that.  "I don't believe in God' tells us nothing about the whys, it has no intersection with what's on TV or fiction.  You are implying there is some necessary approach to fiction in the statement 'I don't believe in God', but there isn't, so I'm assuming there are some other qualities you think that are in play.

Are you sure you're really referring to atheists and not skeptics?  I don't think your point stands for skeptics either, but just wanted to give you some ideas on how you can flesh out what 'atheist' means to you.

[Carlos Allende]

23 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not sure if the question is that 'solid' and it's definitely no moral dilemma for any atheist as it stands.  I really think you need to specify exactly what qualities you think the average atheist has.  All atheists don't believe in god, and that is all we can say they have in common.  You mentioned earlier that you will use a broad brush sometimes and that's fine, but you have to specify what additional qualities you are adding to 'atheist' if you're going to do that.  "I don't believe in God' tells us nothing about the whys, it has no intersection with what's on TV or fiction.  You are implying there is some necessary approach to fiction in the statement 'I don't believe in God', but there isn't, so I'm assuming there are some other qualities you think that are in play.

Mate, I think it's GREAT you're persevering with this. Thumbs up.

My thinking is this: The Atheist statement 'I don't believe in God', implies either a scientific grievance with the concept of God, a philosophical grievance, or a moral grievance. Agreed? I'm more concerned with the moral grievance (I thought this was clear in my original post, and subsequent replies, but I take full responsibility if it wasn't). But even if an Atheist has a scientific or philosophical grievance with the concept of God, the only reason (that I can see) for their ever mentioning their Atheism in public _must_ be the moral aspect, that is, that a belief in God is somehow misdirecting or stifling human potential and human freedom. 

The classic argument is that religious leaders use their position to gain moral superiority, and power for its own sake, and money. Maybe they advocate God just for wishful thinking. If you accept the above, it follows that Atheists must _necessarily_ also criticize any institution that's as powerful as a church, and whose output has as little objective value. I see a _possible_ parallel in writers and distributors of fiction. For example, the member of a devout, evangelical church spends their whole life in duty to dogmatic scripture, and contemplation of a myth. They die and it all amounts to nothing. Meanwhile, a secular punter spends their life reading, say, EL James novels, or Helen Fielding novels (I'm deliberately picking naff writers, but I could go more popular) ...and they die and it amounts to nothing. 

An Atheist response to this might be, 'Ah, but a housewifey thriller doesn't condemn abortion, or a stupid patriarchy, or pointless devotion'. _My_ response would be, any piece of fiction that relies of cliches and pandering to audience expectation is de facto damaging to society. 'Look at how Bridget Jones is now a respected business woman!' -- well, Helen Fielding, she's a successful business woman purely because of the plot devices that you employed, not because of the weird economic necessity the rest of us have to live by <-- and don't seize on that to suggest I'm sexist: some of the best workers and best bosses I've ever had have been women.

What percentage of fiction tells a story that has a happy ending? 90 percent? Something like that? Don't you think that, as a species, we should toughen ourselves up by expecting the worst? Few of us are doctors. Few of us are politicians working single-mindedly to make a fit-for-purpose NHS or _nearly_ enough houses. Therefore (in my opinion) we should admit to ourselves that the world we contribute to is going to hell (figuratively). If we see a bleak ending in a film (picture the cinema sequence in DeNiro's 'What Just Happened?') we freak out. We've done nothing to deserve the feel-good fodder which mainstream fiction gives us at the moment.

I'd like to think the drubbing I've got in this forum (which is fine by the way, I can take it), derives from the idea that I'm disrespecting the Atheist viewpoint. I freely admit that I find a lot of Atheist output, on Youtube, on forums, to be boring and repetitive. I want to see a strong, vital, inclusive, _creative_ Atheism, that's all. 

[Podo]

Religion and mythology are all fiction. However, I do think there is a difference between the two. The difference is of intention and belief; if a person spends a lot of time reading novels and enjoying mythology and otherwise consuming stories, they're enjoying a hobby. In general, a person does not believe their fiction media to be truth, or real. Stories that are viewed in a real sense and that are believed, however, are religion, and that's a problem because it is as ridiculous as someone reading The Name of the Wind and deciding that The Chandrian are real and roaming about killing people alone in the woods. It's ridiculous. Nevertheless, if someone DID do that, I would feel as repulsed by them as I would by any other theist. A person can enjoy a fiction without making it a reality in their mind.

I haven't read the other four pages of this thread, so forgive me if this has been stated already.

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

My thinking is this: The Atheist statement 'I don't believe in God', implies either a scientific grievance with the concept of God, a philosophical grievance, or a moral grievance. Agreed?

As long as when we say 'grievance' related to philosophical and scientific, we just mean disagreement.  A grievance implies someone has been wronged, which I think would only apply to moral grievance.  Not trying to be pedantic, just trying to make sure there aren't any hidden meanings in these phrases.

2 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

I'm more concerned with the moral grievance (I thought this was clear in my original post, and subsequent replies, but I take full responsibility if it wasn't).

I was thrown off then by your earlier exclusion of oppression and such, since those are what I think you mean by moral grievances.

2 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

But even if an Atheist has a scientific or philosophical grievance with the concept of God, the only reason (that I can see) for their ever mentioning their Atheism in public _must_ be the moral aspect, that is, that a belief in God is somehow misdirecting or stifling human potential and human freedom. 

Just to get this out of the way, at this point and with some of your later points, we have drifted from known qualities of the 'average atheist'.  I think believing in Bigfoot is incorrect based on science, but it doesn't follow that I think Bigfoot belief is having a net negative effect.  Same thing with God for me.

Trying to ascertain reasons why someone would mention anything in public is very fraught, people discuss all kinds of things in public for all kinds of reasons. There is no obligation for atheists to stay silent if they simply think there is no god, but don't think there's anything necessarily harmful about god belief.  My country protects free speech.

2 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

The classic argument is that religious leaders use their position to gain moral superiority, and power for its own sake, and money. Maybe they advocate God just for wishful thinking. If you accept the above, it follows that Atheists must _necessarily_ also criticize any institution that's as powerful as a church, and whose output has as little objective value.

No no, definitely not 'necessarily', I don't see how that follows even 'kinda'. First, since we are talking about moral objections we absolutely cannot smash together 'religious leaders' and 'theism'; there is nothing really preventing a theist or agnostic or just 'average person' from saying your first sentence above about religious leaders, and many have.  Religions are criticized for lots of reasons, I assume you've heard those, they can be forces for/contribute to some seriously bad things.  I don't see any evidence or reasonable argument for the idea that fiction writers wield that kind of power or have been a proportionate cause for bad things, so this is another reason why your analogy isn't working in addition to the fact that one is claimed to be true and one is not.  There is nothing in atheism requiring an objection to things of little objective value (whoever determines such a thing).

2 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

They die and it all amounts to nothing

any piece of fiction that relies of cliches and pandering to audience expectation is de facto damaging to society.

We've done nothing to deserve the feel-good fodder which mainstream fiction gives us at the moment.

Those would be your opinions, who gets to decide what things amount to something?  I don't see societal damage from cliches, and your opinion about what others deserve is valid right up to the edge of your own skin.  You have noticed that people have different tastes? 

I'm hoping to see the new Godzilla movie this summer, it's getting very mediocre reviews just like all great Godzilla movies which is a good sign, it should be a ridiculous audio/visual spectacle of giant CGI monsters destroying everything, all with a generous helping of cheeziness, with characters I've enjoyed since childhood.  How any of that relates to the idea that god doesn't exist is absolutely beyond me.  Why would I be concerned about your subjective opinion of what things amount to something any more than I would your favorite ice cream flavor?

2 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

I freely admit that I find a lot of Atheist output, on Youtube, on forums, to be boring and repetitive. I want to see a strong, vital, inclusive, _creative_ Atheism, that's all. 

Whereas the abundance of theist output is just so fresh and novel...  I think atheism is already inclusive and probably stronger than it's ever been; if you'd like it to be more creative, then go ahead, do so.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Liquid Gardens

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

it's getting very mediocre reviews

The only opinion that matters when it comes to entertainment is our own. Hellboy got slammed by critics, I loved it. 

[Habitat]

1 hour ago, Podo said:

Religion and mythology are all fiction

Matey, if you really believed that, you'd not even bother discussing it. It would be no more a matter for cogitation than, say, whether the rabbit's foot is really lucky. Settled matters don't interest us.

[Podo]

29 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Matey, if you really believed that, you'd not even bother discussing it. It would be no more a matter for cogitation than, say, whether the rabbit's foot is really lucky. Settled matters don't interest us.

That's a classic theistic argument that holds less water than your fictional holy grail does. I find religion fascinating in the same way that I find anthropology fascinating, or history. It's an important force in the world, its history is relevant, and its influence is observably tangible. That doesn't mean that I give any credibility whatsoever to the subject of the stories. They're just stories, nothing more, but stories and their effects (via there believers) are undeniable.

Edit:
Also, talking to theists can be interesting. Plenty of theists are intelligent people with worthwhile contributions to make. Or, it can be fun to listen to crazy people be crazy; listening to very religious people can be as entertaining as listening to the crazy doomsday guy that every city has. Sometimes you just want to talk to a crazy person to see what they have to say.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Podo

[Podo]

31 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

The only opinion that matters when it comes to entertainment is our own. Hellboy got slammed by critics, I loved it. 

Me too! I thought it was great. There are DOZENS OF US!

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, Podo said:

I find religion fascinating in the same way that I find anthropology fascinating, or history.

But anthropology and history deal in real events, you say religion is just fiction. Are you interested is any other fake subjects ?

[psyche101]

45 minutes ago, Habitat said:

But anthropology and history deal in real events, you say religion is just fiction. Are you interested is any other fake subjects ?

Its not a fake subject. Religion is all too real. The beliefs are fake but the concept shaped society. 

Is there a reason you don't find it hypocritical that you spend as much or more time telling posters not to discuss religion? How do you find your harassment of those discussing religions better than those discussing the subject? It might be just me but your fascination with this argument whilst enacting the same principle seems a great deal stranger. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

The only opinion that matters when it comes to entertainment is our own. Hellboy got slammed by critics, I loved it. 

Good to hear!  Liked the ones with Perlman.