Sean Manchester - Vampire Hunter

[Wheezebucket]

If I had to pick who I thought was more likely to exist in reality at any point in time, Batman or Jesus, I'd go Batman every time.

I got my 'gist of life' from Batman, too.

Gordy

PS - Colors are fun for all ages.

 

[Paul]

Are you trying to say that Spider-man isn't real? Then how come I don't have to avoid pumpkin bombs and liquid alien symbiotes on my way to work, hmm? Answer me that!

OK you've got me there. Come to think of it, I didn't get burned alive by any giant flying reptiles either, definitely something not going on.

 

[Paul]

No I'm not, I've got my beliefs and I'm sticking to them, just like you have your 'beliefs' and are sticking to them that is your perogative.

What you believe has nothing to do with your obstinacy regarding evidence, unless there is a catholic proscription against backing up what you claim.

The truth in your opinion not necessarily mine. Just because you believe that your version is the truth doesn't make it so.

In this case it does; you made a demonstrably false claim and then continued with it despite proof to the contrary.

If there is anyone who has been insulting it is yourself but that does not surprise me in the least because people who don't understand religion are always insulting.

That's an interesting little sweeping generalisation you've got there; for a grown woman who is secretary of two organisations, you seem to have a lot of trouble with communication.

Christ is not dead.

Ahh, the zeal of the recent convert.

And if I were you I'd find definitions of the word illogical. Because that is what you are being?

If you're going to try and play word games, it is a good idea not to make really basic mistakes from the beginning.

Oh and again thanks for making my belief more stronger then before if it is possible

If you weren't in such a rush to judgement you might not produce such garbled sentences.

 

[Paul]

Can you?

Nope, does that mean they must exist?

 

[Paul]

Since when am I imposing my views on others as I have quite plainly said time and time again, it is upto the individual to believe in what they want to believe in. I can't put it much more simply then that.

So when you said "There really should be no such thing as free speech" you were lying?

Again it is not Blind obedience to proudly follow the rules of the Church that they belong to.

It is if you follow them regardless or what they are, for example: "I would not go against my Church for anything or anyone" or "what my Church says or does I will firmly adhere to"

Again you have to have set morals,

You should be quite capable of creating your own moral framework.

to know how to behave with people, to know right from wrong.

Children are expected to know right from wrong, surely you don't need an old German for that.

To set a better standard for yourself, to have guidance.

You can get guidance without the dogma from other places.

Honestly, I don't know how you managed before last year.

What you mean just like you are telling me not to believe in God? It's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm not telling you what to believe or not; it's more like the pot asking the kettle if it wouldn't mind not making statements or claims it cannot or will not support.

 

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul

I am just curious as to why it is that you continually keep demanding 'material proof' for statements or beliefs put forward here; the implication being that if such 'evidence' (as you call it) cannot be produced, anything said must automatically be a 'lie' or misguided. You also appear to give so much emphasis (or importance) to clinical words as found in the dictionary. You imply, that if some words do not accord with a particular definition (almost invaraibly your own!), clinical words can 'disprove' what is being attempted to be put across in a particular post.

I think that you would agree that this latter summary of your posts is fairly accurate anyway.

I only wanted to ask, why you cannot look at life, without laying so much importance on material words?! I mean, can words ever prove or disprove any point of view or arguement?

I personally don't think so, unless people are content to take the status of 'robotic machines' when nothing else than material mechanics matters! That in itself might not matter or be wrong. But how can people be expected to ever see anything beyond themselves when entrapped within such a metal shell?

I am not trying to 'be funny' or clever here. I have just noticed the stark contrast between 'cold materialism' and the real world in some of your postings (and one or two others), which is not really 'cold' and 'material' - unless it is erroneously interpreted as such!

This is not meant to be personal. But I just wondered how the dictionary definition of words has become so important to you? I mean by this, being 'caught' in the words themselves perhaps, and being unable to go beyond your own interpretation or definition of given words?

I would have thought this could only serve to 'off-throw' any discussion about anything that was perhaps beyond the meaning of the technical words in question themselves?

David (Farrant)

 

[delphi_ote]

I am just curious as to why it is that you continually keep demanding 'material proof' for statements or beliefs put forward here...

Did you bother to do any reading about us before you started posting on our forum?

 

[Paul]

It's very gallant of you to defend Catherine, but perhaps not advisable to get involved in a problem she has created herself, we'll only end up going over the same things twice.

As to your questions...

I am just curious as to why it is that you continually keep demanding 'material proof' for statements or beliefs put forward here

I ask for evidence when it is claimed to exist and for proof when statements of absolute truth are made.

the implication being that if such 'evidence' (as you call it) cannot be produced, anything said must automatically be a 'lie' or misguided.

Firstly, it's not 'evidence' it is plain old evidence and not a word or concept created by me. Secondly, a claim for the existence of evidence, which is followed by a steadfast refusal to produce, will necessarily lead to suspicion about such evidence.

You also appear to give so much emphasis (or importance) to clinical words as found in the dictionary.

I always find it odd when people start complaining about requests for accurate use of language, often accompanied by bizarre characterisations of the language being used as somehow deliberately difficult.

You imply, that if some words do not accord with a particular definition (almost invaraibly your own!),

There has been only one exchange, about the context of one word, which used definitions from a dictionary to illustrate the sometime importance of knowing how a word is intended to be used.

clinical words can 'disprove' what is being attempted to be put across in a particular post.

They're not special words, with a magical ability to confirm or deny any specific statement; the attempted argument will stand or fall on it's own merits.

I think that you would agree that this latter summary of your posts is fairly accurate anyway.

As you can see, I most certainly would not.

I only wanted to ask, why you cannot look at life, without laying so much importance on material words?!

Did you notice that you had to express that thought in words by typing it on a keyboard and sending it to the forum to be displayed as words?

I mean, can words ever prove or disprove any point of view or arguement?

We could always to back to trial by combat.

I am not trying to 'be funny' or clever here. I have just noticed the stark contrast between 'cold materialism' and the real world in some of your postings (and one or two others), which is not really 'cold' and 'material' - unless it is erroneously interpreted as such!

You use the word materialism a lot, it often seems at first that you have a philosophical meaning in mind, but then always comes back to the mundane explanation. Either way, what leads you to assume that I, and others, have an overriding preoccupation with material possessions and have no interest in intellectual or cultural values?

This is not meant to be personal. But I just wondered how the dictionary definition of words has become so important to you?

Generally it is not, and would not have been in this case if a simple answer had been supplied.

I mean by this, being 'caught' in the words themselves perhaps, and being unable to go beyond your own interpretation or definition of given words?

I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

I would have thought this could only serve to 'off-throw' any discussion about anything that was perhaps beyond the meaning of the technical words in question themselves?

'Wrong' is not a technical word, it simply has several definitions which give a different meaning to the phrase 'history (or religion) is wrong'.

 

[The Overseer]

A Summation With Comments

I feel almost like I've been getting a migraine from large portions of the content of this thread, over the last two pages.

Nonetheless, I can't but help add my own two cents into it.

Hi CatherineFearnley,

Let's start with some basic theology:

Yes and a million Christians can't be wrong either.

~ #723
​

You do realise that evoking a link between Christians and lemmings (little, furry, suicidal creatures who plunge to their deaths off cliffs, in mass numbers) kind of undermines the religion, don't you?

All religion has many doctrines and rules and regulations. But at the end of the day most religions do not contradict with each other because they all believe in ONE GOD, ONE CREATOR choose whatever you wish to call HIM.

~ #723
​

"They all"? Wrong.

Do you pray to the god of Islam, i.e., Allah? If so, why not? It's all the same, yeah? Judaism, Christianity and Islam represent a triad of the main religions that are monotheistic. While I will not vouch for this as fact, I would be under the impression that most other religions were pantheistic. If they all worship the same god, then why do said religions contain prohibitions against worshipping other gods? ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me." ~ Exodus 20:3). What do you make of the god of Islam, who, by "divine revelation" bestowed a holy book on a prophet, which in turn denies the divinity and resurrection of Jesus? Same god?

The reason different religions exist, is because their cosmologies are incompatible (to various degrees), or not quite in sync, through choice of followers or in doctrine.

There's a reason you belong to the specific branch of religion that you do.

...and also Spiritualists believe in the Creator/God which amounts to the same thing.

~ #731
​

The same thing? Interesting. Then tell me what you make of the Biblical prohibitions against Spiritualism?

Now, onto vampires:

I have not defined 'vampires' in any shape or form. I just don't believe in them one iota. To do so would go against my own Church. David has never used the word 'vampire' to describe the psychic entity. He may have said 'vampire-like' but that is really up to David to discuss. You have not provided evidence for fairies one way or another. Just an anecdote which may or may not be true. So why should Dvaid provide evidence of his beliefs. Come to think of it why should anyone either here or elsewhere provide evidence for their beliefs. Belief is upto the individual.

~ #723
​

Firstly, glad you're so open-minded on the concept of choice-of-belief. However, your rabid anti-vampire stance contradicts it. You see, it seems that you are saying that "Hey, believe what you want...as long as it's not this" And vampire is the magic word that keeps on reappearing.

I wonder why this is?

Now, according to the citations I have provided (which David still hasn't explicity denied the veracity of), he has used the word "vampire" on several occasions (even as late as 2005). Indeed, you are the Secretary of his Highgate Vampire Society.

But, if you want a more specific, more current interpretation of his view on vampires, then look no further than the following extract from his own website:

... it is true that I do not believe in vampires in their commercialised sense i.e. the sort of vampire that has stepped straight out of a Hammer film, sleeps in its coffin by day and goes around sucking people's blood by night and which can only be destroyed by being 'staked through the heart'. I have frequently said in the past that this sort of vampire is pure fiction. But this does not mean, however, there there do not exist psychic entities that take on vampire-like characteristics in that they remain 'earthbound' and posses the capability to attack unsuspecting victims, psychically leading some people to believe they have become 'possessed'. But this is an entirely different matter.

~ http://www.davidfarrant.org/Interviews.html
​

Indeed.

 

[The Overseer]

To Paul

It's very gallant of you to defend Catherine, but perhaps not advisable to get involved in a problem she has created herself, we'll only end up going over the same things twice.

Well, you'd help your girlfriend out if she was in a fight too, wouldn't you?

 

[DavidFarrant]

For ease of the situation, I'm staying with David for the next couple of days and it makes life easier to use his account. When I return home naturally I'll use my own. For the record David is not gallantly 'defending me', I neither asked him to post or expected him to do so. He did this of his own free will. Could I also ask why is this a problem, just because I've stated my beliefs? And am not backing down on them just because of this boards say so? Basically as stated before David was forced to come onto this forum due to false and malicious allegations made to him by another member of this forum who has since been banned. And I was sort of forced into this thread because Cuddles implied that I had been banned also when quite clearly I have not been. On another note, since then members of this forum have created a thread for David and he has had the courage to stay for months on end to answer questions regarding his beliefs and has had the same flack that I am getting now. What I would like to know is why are people on this board so good at giving questions out and expect other people to answer but when that person starts to ask them questions they refuse to answer. Also with regards to Vampire406 website again if someone hadn't posted book reviews etc then again we wouldn't have felt obliged to answer anything. And we are not shifting the proof of burden, what we have regards to that situation is actual evidence and straight from evidence contained in documents and personal experience.

Catherine Fearnley

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Also with regards to Vampire406 website again if someone hadn't posted book reviews etc then again we wouldn't have felt obliged to answer anything. And we are not shifting the proof of burden, what we have regards to that situation is actual evidence and straight from evidence contained in documents and personal experience.

Catherine Fearnley

Posting the same thing over and over is not getting anywhere either. I've been as lenient as possible so both camps could have their say. However, circular arguments, day in and out, riding on my dime is like a guest who over stays the welcome.

Asking someone to disprove god, or ghosts or whatnot is shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon those making the claim, not those disproving a claim. FYI click here.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)

Here are a couple of examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

 

[DavidFarrant]

Posting the same thing over and over is not getting anywhere either. I've been as lenient as possible so both camps could have their say. However, circular arguments, day in and out, riding on my dime is like a guest who over stays the welcome.

Hi Vampire406. I was highgly unaware that we were posting the same thing day in and day out. And naturally if people post the same story day in day with gross distortions then what choice do we have but to come back and put the record straight. This happens time and time again when people start new threads on message boards, start new articles, start new blogs etc etc it always comes back to the original nonsense posted by only one person going under aliases.

You have only got to look back to see that this is the case. We might have answered outrageous claims but I think you will see that it is never ourselves who have made these first. What are we supposed to do? Leave them so that people can take them as the gospel truth?


Asking someone to disprove god, or ghosts or whatnot is shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon those making the claim, not those disproving a claim. FYI click here.

The point being that I don't need proof that God exists. It seems to me as though everyone else on this board does. And why should I not ask other people to disprove something when they quite plainly think that my belief is in the wrong?

Catherine Fearnley

 

[Miss Whiplash]

 

[DavidFarrant]

For the Vampire

This is from me vampire406.

I am a bit concerned because I just wondered if you could pove that that poor horse was really dead!!??

David (Farrant)

 

[CLD]

Possibly why people doubt the Bishop's authenticity:

 

[DavidFarrant]

Where did you get the tea-pot cosy from? Great picture by the way, we have to give you credit where credit is due (considering we usually only drink tea in England!?)

Best wishes

Catherine and David

NB: Will go back to my account at the weekend.

 

[Minarvia]

This is from me vampire406.

I am a bit concerned because I just wondered if you could pove that that poor horse was really dead!!??

David (Farrant)

Heh! Well, I guess we could go the route of checking for its pulse and heart and brain activity.

 

[Paul]

Heh! Well, I guess we could go the route of checking for its pulse and heart and brain activity.

That chap's been giving it a jolly good thrashing for three hours now, that'll have finished it off.

 

[delphi_ote]

Did you bother to do any reading about us before you started posting on our forum?

Thank you for answering this question with a resounding unspoken "no."