[Marky]

Dan Brown is NOT a good author. This must be the fisrt time agree with Cyzyk, so it says a lot.

[Gobbler]

You're just jealous.

[Otal Nimrodi]

What pisses me off is that people are claiming every word is fact. An interesting fact about where you can find this book, if you look hard enough... IT'S IN THE FICTION SECTION, MORONS! It's FICTION!

It's fun to laugh. See a crappy movie like ROTS and laugh a little.

Yeah. Like Plan 9!

[Cyzyk]

There is an exception to the funny bad movie rule; Manos: the Hands of Fate is so bad it isn't fun to watch.

EVERYBODY wants to make the Catholic Church have a conspiracy. Absolutely everybody. Even H.P. Lovecraft talks about 'rumors that a copy of Al Aziz's Necronomicon in the Vatican'. The Church getting accused of everything and anything isn't new.

Most people don't know that the Inquisition was a political tool wielded by the Spanish in open defiance of the Pope, and that Galileo was censured not because of his heliocentric theory, but because of other claims he made against the Church. Why doesn't someone write a book about that?

[Marky]

I really don't care if the conspiracy he describes is true or not. Whatever. It's just not very well written. I'm not saying he's the worst author ever, I'm just saying he's not a very good author. He sold, what, 40,000,000 copies, true. But I know a lot of people read if because a lot of people did so already. The book is overly-hyped. If you enjoyed the book, I'm not going to call you a fool, but if you just look at the way he writes, you can't conclude anything else that he isn't a brilliant writer.

[Otal Nimrodi]

I'll repeat why I read it...

Conspiracy theories are FUN!

[Sailor Abbey]

There is an exception to the funny bad movie rule; Manos: the Hands of Fate is so bad it isn't fun to watch.

EVERYBODY wants to make the Catholic Church have a conspiracy. Absolutely everybody. Even H.P. Lovecraft talks about 'rumors that a copy of Al Aziz's Necronomicon in the Vatican'. The Church getting accused of everything and anything isn't new.

Most people don't know that the Inquisition was a political tool wielded by the Spanish in open defiance of the Pope, and that Galileo was censured not because of his heliocentric theory, but because of other claims he made against the Church. Why doesn't someone write a book about that?

Oh the poor Catholic Church. Always the victim.

I know, stop making people feel guilty for doing things that nature intended them to do and don't go around saying your belief system is the only valid one, and maybe everybody will stop hating you. How bout that, Catholic Church?

This post has been edited by Sailor Abbey: 20 May 2006 - 08:20 AM

[Chyld]

There are two things that really grate on my nerves: people forcing me to do things I really don't want to do at the time, and things recieving insane volumes of hype for no good reason. While the book of The Code was quite good (I read any damn thing), it wasn't as spectacularly legenarily life-changing as the media would make it out to be. And even before the reviews slating the film came out, I knew that it wasn't going to compare favourably to the book. So a bad film adaption of a passable book equals... what now, class?

[Otal Nimrodi]

HitchHiker's guide?

Well... That was a bad film adaptation of a GOOD book, but...

[Cyzyk]

I know, stop making people feel guilty for doing things that nature intended them to do and don't go around saying your belief system is the only valid one, and maybe everybody will stop hating you. How bout that, Catholic Church?

Uh... I wouldn't recommend that 'nature intending them to do' argument. If I'm physically capable of beating the tar out of 99.5% of the population, should I? Nature allows me to make napalm, and ensures that it is highly effective on pets and small children, should I do that as well? Nature obviously doesn't even intend for us to reproduce limitlessly, as some people seem bent on trying. Actions have consequences. Science exists on that principle, it does not exist to violate it.

You should feel guilty for doing things you shouldn't do, it helps keep you from doing them again. Should people not have nerves, so they don't feel pain when they burn themselves? After all, that pain only discourages them from doing things.

As for the belief system being the only valid one, with religion you cannot have more than one right. If God as Catholics seem him exists, then being a Buddhist really won't do anything for you. It's all tree-huggy happy and politically correct to say otherwise, but even a child can do the logic. Pascal spells it out quite clearly.

[SithAvenger]

Wow, the movie sucked. Cinema really isn't the medium for the story. The only good things about the movie were Paul Bettany and Ian McKellen.

I liked the book, though I admit that the characters were 1 dimensional (except Silas, he ruled). I liked the book for it's fast paced writing style that made you rush through the chapters. Also, I like conspiracy theories and what can be more surpirisng that God's power on Earth is a fake?

[Despondent]

Haven't seen it yet, but kind of want to. Although another reader of the book who I talked to tonight panned its dead delivery. Maybe if the history channel had done it it would be been better? Probably, he said.

[Sailor Abbey]

Uh... I wouldn't recommend that 'nature intending them to do' argument. If I'm physically capable of beating the tar out of 99.5% of the population, should I? Nature allows me to make napalm, and ensures that it is highly effective on pets and small children, should I do that as well?

Hey, nature allowing and nature intending are two very different concepts.

Nature obviously doesn't even intend for us to reproduce limitlessly, as some people seem bent on trying.

I would have to disagree. Nature most likely intends for us to reproduce until we are no longer able to do so. However, we seem to have become quite adept at preventing nature from selecting a large percentage of the population for termination, so it just seems like we shouldnt be reproducing limitlessly.

You should feel guilty for doing things you shouldn't do, it helps keep you from doing them again.

Oh you mean things like having premarital sex, or having sex with somebody of the same gender, or masturbating, or how bout not going to mass on Sunday, or getting a divorce, or not baptizing your children... the list goes on...

As for the belief system being the only valid one, with religion you cannot have more than one right.

Wrong again. With monotheistic religions, you cant have more than one. You are making the assumption that all religions are, and I assure you they are not.

This post has been edited by Sailor Abbey: 22 May 2006 - 08:51 AM

[Cyzyk]

Hey, nature allowing and nature intending are two very different concepts.

Invalid. If a thing is possible and relatively easy, it counts as nature intending it. Can hippos fly? No, nature does not intend for it. Do most birds? Yes. Does a bird have the option of not flying? It does, but for the bird not to fly is for the bird to waste a natural ability and short itself. Do I have the option of not beating the snot out of people? I both have and exercise that option, but I would profit from doing it.

Nature 'intends' for sex to result in reproduction, as does the Catholic Church. I fail to see how using science to turn it into a recreational activity counts as 'natural'.

Oh you mean things like having premarital sex, or having sex with somebody of the same gender, or masturbating, or how bout not going to mass on Sunday, or getting a divorce, or not baptizing your children... the list goes on...

Yes... doing something wrong, is wrong. And if something is wrong, you shouldn't do it. And if you do happen to do it, you shouldn't do it again. I fail to see how a guy getting a girl pregnant and dumping her isn't a wrong thing. I doubt that view changes even from a female perspective.

Wrong again. With monotheistic religions, you cant have more than one. You are making the assumption that all religions are, and I assure you they are not.

On the contrary, I recognize the presence of polytheism. But Buddhism (which isn't really a religion, per se) hardly agrees with what Vikings believed, and what Vikings believed doesn't line up with what American Indians believe, which is turn doesn't line up with what Hindus believe. Are cannibalism and human sacrifice good things? It varies on religion. Whether you believe in one god or eleventy million, odds are that they don't appreciate you worshipping other, outside gods.

Look at Greek mythology. Some of them get awfully annoyed when they see their worshipers going in search of greener pastures or ignoring them.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Alright, why don't you two take this outside. To the debate club, maybe.