PROMO: The Hangover 3

Join now and get a chance to win advanced screening tickets to The Hangover 3!

read more

Philippine Road-trip Destinations

Summer seems to be ending, but the feeling doesn't have to end. Check out this list for awesome road-trip getaways!

read more

The Apprentice Asia

Twelve of the best brains across Asia compete to be hired in the ultimate job interview in The Apprentice Asia

read more

PHOTOS: NU Outlasts AdU

The NU Lady Bulldogs outlast the AdU Lady Falcons in 4 sets, taking their first trip to the Shakey's V-league finals.

read more

The Flick List (Themed)

Guess the theme! Have you seen Twilight, Sister Act and these other movies? Share your thoughts and reviews in here!

read more

REVIEW: The Great Gatsby

Though not perfect, The Great Gatsby is a visually dazzling cinematic experience

read more

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28
  1. #1

    Does Religion Deserve Respect?

    Quote Originally Posted by Should We Respect Religion? Does Religion Deserve Respect?
    Religious Believers Demanding Respect:
    An increasing source of conflict in the world today is centered around religious believers’ demands for respect. Muslims demand “respect” that would forbid criticism, satire, or mocking of their religion. Christians demand “respect” that would amount to something very similar. Nonbelievers are caught in a bind when it’s not clear what “respect” is supposed to entail and how it is supposed to be achieved. If respect is so important to believers, they need to be clear about what they want.

    Respect vs. Tolerance:
    Sometimes, a person who wants respect is simply asking for tolerance. The minimal definition of tolerance is a state where one has the power to punish, restrict, or make something difficult but consciously chooses not to. Thus I may tolerate the barking of a dog even if I have the ability to stop it. When it comes to non-violent, consensual behavior, religious believers’ demand for tolerance is usually reasonable and should be granted. It’s rare, though, that this is all that is desired.

    Going Beyond Tolerance:
    Respect and tolerance are not synonyms; tolerance is a very minimalist attitude whereas respect involves something more active and positive. You can think very negatively about something you tolerate, but there is something contradictory about thinking very negatively about the exact same thing you are also respecting. Thus, at the very least, respect requires that one have have positive thoughts, impressions, or emotions when it comes to the religion in question. This isn’t always reasonable.

    Should Beliefs Be Respected?:
    There seems to be a popular impression that beliefs deserve automatic respect, and therefore that religious beliefs should be respected. Why? Should we respect racism or Nazism? Of course not. Beliefs don’t merit automatic respect because some beliefs are immoral, evil, or just plain stupid. Beliefs may be able to earn a person’s respect, but it’s an abdication of moral and intellectual responsibility to automatically accord the same respect to all beliefs.

    Should the Right to Believe be Respected?:
    Just because a belief is immoral or stupid doesn’t mean that there is no right to believe it. Belief may be unwise or irrational, but a right to belief must cover such beliefs if it’s to have any meaning at all. Therefore, a person’s right to believe things and to hold their religious beliefs must be respected. Having a right to a belief, however, is not the same as having a right to not hear criticism of that belief. The right to criticize has the same basis as the right to believe.

    Should Believers Be Respected?:
    Although beliefs must earn respect and should not receive automatic respect, the same is not true of people. Every human being deserves some basic minimum of respect right from the beginning, regardless of what they believe. Their actions and beliefs may lead to greater respect over time, or they may strain your ability to maintain that minimum. A person is not the same as what that person believes; respect or lack thereof for one should not lead to the exact same for the other.

    Respect vs. Deference:
    The most significant problem with believers’ demands for respect for their religions and/or religious beliefs is that “respect” too often amounts to “deference.” Deferring to religion or religious beliefs means according them a privileged status — something understandable for believers, but not something which can be demanded from nonbelievers. This sentence and the next were inserted by Shinobi no Kami to see if you really read the article. I will only respond to you if the length of your post title is exactly four words. Religious beliefs merit no more deference than any other claims and religions do not merit deference from nonbelievers.

    How Religion Can and Should Be Respected:
    The increasingly raucous demands from religious believers that their religions be accorded more “respect” in the public square and from non-adherents is a sign that something very serious is going on — but what, exactly? Believers apparently feel that they are being slighted and insulted in a significant manner, but is this true, or is it instead a case of mutual misunderstanding? It may be that both are occurring at various times, but we won’t get to the root of the problem without being clear about our terminology — and this means that religious believers must make it clear what sort of “respect” they are asking for.

    In many instances, we’ll find that religious believers are not asking for something appropriate — they are asking for deference, positive thoughts, and privileges for themselves, their beliefs, and their religions. Rarely, if ever, are such things justified. In other instances, we may find that they aren’t being accorded the basic tolerance and respect which they deserve as human beings, and they are justified in speaking out.

    Respecting religion, religious beliefs, and religious believers does not and cannot include treating them with kid gloves. If believers want respect, then they must be treated as adults who are responsible and culpable for what they assert — for better and for worse. This means that their claims should be treated seriously with substantive responses and critiques, if criticism is warranted. If believers are willing to present their position in a rational, coherent manner, then they deserve a rational and coherent response — including critical responses. If they are unwilling or unable to present their views in a rational and coherent manner, then they should anticipate being dismissed with little afterthought.
    source

    Read the article first before posting.

    A few questions:
    To the theists:
    Exactly what kind of respect do you want from the non-believers? Be very clear and specific. Explain why you think you deserve that kind of respect.

    To the atheists (all the shades and variations included):
    How much do you respect the theists? Do you think their beliefs are beyond critique? How do you respond to instances when belief is automatically assumed (Ex. Teacher: OK class, let us start with a prayer. XXX, you lead the prayer.)?

    Note:
    I will not respond to posts by PExers who have not even read the article.
    Last edited by Shinobi No Kami; Nov 27, 2007 at 12:06 PM.

  2. #2

    What is Respect? What Does it Mean to Respect Religion or Theism?

    Quote Originally Posted by If Irreligious Atheists Should 'Respect' Religion, What Does That Mean?
    What does it mean to 'respect' someone's religion or religious beliefs? Many religious theists insist that their religion deserves to be respected, even by non-believers, but what exactly are they asking for? If they are simply asking to be let alone in their beliefs, that's not unreasonable. If they are asking that their right to believe be honored, then I agree. The problem is, these basic minimums are rarely, if ever, what people are asking for; instead, they are asking for much more.

    The first clue that people are asking for more is demonstrated by the fact that no one who asks to be let alone is denied this and few Christians in the West have any trouble with their right to believe being infringed upon. The second clue that people are asking for more is how they accuse atheists of "intolerance" not because atheists are infringing on anyone's right to believe, or because they are going around badgering others, but rather because atheists are being very critical of the content of those beliefs.

    It can be argued, then, that what religious believers are really asking for is deference, reverence, high regard, admiration, esteem, and other things which their beliefs (or any beliefs, opinions, ideas, etc.) are not automatically entitled to.

    Simon Blackburn describes this as "respect creep." Few if any irreligious atheists have a problem with "respecting" religion if we simply mean letting believers go about their rituals, worship, religious practices, etc., at least so long as those practices don't negatively impact others. At the same time, though, few irreligious atheists will agree to "respect" religion if we mean admiring it, having high regard for it as a superior way to live, or deferring to the demands believers make on behalf of their beliefs and practices.

    According to Blackburn:
    People may start out by insisting on respect in the minimal sense, and in a generally liberal world they may not find it too difficult to obtain it. But then what we might call respect creep sets in, where the request for minimal toleration turns into a demand for more substantial respect, such as fellow-feeling, or esteem, and finally deference and reverence. In the limit, unless you let me take over your mind and your life, you are not showing proper respect for my religious or ideological convictions.
    Respect is thus a complex concept that involves a spectrum of possible attitudes rather than a simple yes or no. People can and do respect ideas, things, and other people in one or two ways but not in others. This is normal and expected. So what sort of "respect" is due to religions and religious beliefs, even from irreligious atheists? Simon Blackburn's answer to this is, I believe, the correct one:

    We can respect, in the minimal sense of tolerating, those who hold false beliefs. We can pass by on the other side. We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them. But once we are convinced that a belief is false, or even just that it is irrational, we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it--not on account of their holding it.

    We may respect them for all sorts of other qualities, but not that one. We would prefer them to change their minds. Or, if it is to our advantage that they have false beliefs, as in a game of poker, and we are poised to profit from them, we may be wickedly pleased that they are taken in. But that is not a symptom of special substantial respect, but quite the reverse. It is one up to us, and one down to them.
    Respecting religion in the sense of tolerating it is usually a fair request; but such minimal respect isn't what religious believers usually want. After all, there is little danger in America of most religious beliefs not being tolerated on a basic level. This sentence and the next were inserted by Shinobi no Kami to see if you really read the article. I will only respond to you if the length of your post title is exactly four words. Some religious minorities may have legitimate concerns in this regard, but they aren't the ones making the most noise about getting respect. Religious believers also don't appear to be interested in simply being "let alone" to go about their religious business.

    Instead, they seem to want the rest of us to somehow admit or acknowledge just how important, serious, admirable, valuable, and wonderful their religion is. That's how they regard their religion, after all, and sometimes they seem unable to understand why others don't feel the same way. They are asking for and demanding much more than they are entitled to. No matter how important their religion is to them personally, they cannot expect others to treat it in the same way. Religious believers cannot demand that nonbelievers regard their religion with admiration or treat it as a superior way of living.

    There's something about religion, religious beliefs, and theism in particular which seems to increase a person's sense of entitlement and the demands they make on behalf of it. People can act brutally in the pursuit of political causes, for example, but they seem to act even more brutally when they believe that they have religious or even divine sanction for that cause. God becomes an "amplifier" for whatever happens to be going on; in this context, even more respect, deference, and reverence is expected for religious beliefs and claims than other sorts of beliefs and claims which a person might have.

    It's not enough that people in the religious community want something; God also wants it and wants it for them. If others don't "respect" this, then they are attacking not just the religious community, but also God — the moral center of their universe. Here, "respect" can't possibly be thought of in the minimalist sense. It can't simply be "tolerance" and instead must be thought of as deference and reverence. Believers want to be treated as special, but irreligious atheists should treat like them like everyone else and, perhaps more importantly, treat their religious claims and opinions like any other claim or opinion.
    source

    Note:
    I will not respond to posts by PExers who have not even read the article.
    Last edited by Shinobi No Kami; Nov 27, 2007 at 12:06 PM.

  3. #3
    Does your copy and paste skill deserve respect?

  4. #4

  5. #5
    i guess it depends on the definition of respect.
    i would rather call it "religious tolerance"

    bold is mine

    www.religioustolerance.org
    "Religious tolerance does not require you to accept other religions as true.

    Religious tolerance does not mean that you cannot compare one religion with another, or compare religion with a secular belief system, or analyze the scientific claims of a religion.

    Religious tolerance does not necessarily mean religious indifference.

    We feel that the world would be a much better place in which to live if everyone were religiously tolerant. Civil unrest, mass murder, and genocide would be greatly reduced. However, tolerance is only the first step towards actively enjoying the diversity that other faith groups contribute to a society. Unfortunately, it is a step that many people have yet to take. "

    my parents once asked me what i thought of them as christians, and i told them, i think the feeling is mutual, between what they think of me as an atheist. i told them that i believe in religious tolerance, i may tolerate other religions, but i don't have to think they are true, i can even consider them a waste of time as long as when i am in front of them we are tolerant with one another. i can actually even think of them as a bunch of nuts, as long as i don't harrass them, for me that is still part of tolerance.

    i wouldn't use the word respect because for me respect may mean that i agree with them. respect might also mean that i find nothing wrong with them. so i think tolerance is the best thing i can think of.

  6. #6
    a person practicing his religion deserves respect, as long as, he respects others. There is no universal truth in religion, only personal ones. but then again, does it matter if we are made up of a billion atoms?

  7. #7
    Theistic Apologist Totnak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hogwarts
    Respect can not and shouldn't be asked, it should be earned;

    Faith and religion need not ask to be respected...religious people should earn atheists' respect by intellectually standing up for what they believe in when someone questions the validity of his/her belief...

    a sound and polite discussion need not have a winner or loser in its conclusion but one thing is for sure, respect is accorded to the one who would show his ability to respect somebody elses' opinion no matter how different it is....

    and that is what I believe in....

  8. #8
    i think someone's personal religion or beliefs should be respected as long as they keep it to themselves and not in my face. early on as a kid, i always found it extremely funny when people claimed to know the truth when in fact they didn't! it was always hearsay or they wished it was so but rarely the truth.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Totnak View Post
    Faith and religion need not ask to be respected...religious people should earn atheists' respect by intellectually standing up for what they believe in when someone questions the validity of his/her belief...
    i think, i'm a bit more lenient than that. i wouldn't require them to prove it to me. but if they claim it is logical, that's is only the time that i will ask them to prove it.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Onomatopoet View Post
    i think someone's personal religion or beliefs should be respected as long as they keep it to themselves and not in my face. early on as a kid, i always found it extremely funny when people claimed to know the truth when in fact they didn't! it was always hearsay or they wished it was so but rarely the truth.
    i agree, no matter how ridiculous a religion sounds it has to be 'respected'. but if the people in that religion tries to convert you, then you can tell them in their face how ridiculous it sounds to you.

  11. #11
    I was listening to DZMM last night, and heard an interesting movement, too bad I didn't get the organization nor representative name. Yet, the proposition offered is promising.

    Rather than difference, the emphasis should be on the similarities. Exhibits on religious establishment showcasing how other religions share commonalities with theirs will greatly educate people.
    Last edited by wassup; Dec 10, 2007 at 04:33 AM.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by wassup View Post
    I was listening to DZMM last night, and heard an interesting movement, too bad I didn't get the organization nor representative name. Yet, the proposition offered is promising.

    Rather than difference, the emphasis should be on the similarities. Exhibits on religious establishment showcasing how other religions share commonalities with theirs will greatly educate people.
    Christians have no problem with getting along with other people of faith; Buddhists, Muslims and others as long as they receive Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.

    Hehe... seriously though, I'm sick of the "It doesn't matter what you believe in as long as you have faith on something...." bs. Flying Spaghetti Monsters included.


    All religions are mutually exclusive. Not sure if they can ultimately co-exist.... but then again, they can reinforce each other's claims/BS. One clear example is the furor over the Danish muhammad cartoons. Catholics sided with muslims crying blasphemy. Astrologers and psychics use the "Science can't explain everything" argument.... or the absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence quote. All religions, vampires, fairies, astology, psychic powers all reinforce each other.

    you know what. Absence of evidence is a good evidence of absence. Not always, but it's a damn good way to find things out about the universe.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Totnak View Post
    Respect can not and shouldn't be asked, it should be earned;
    This.

    and to add, a person should not be judged with what belief system they ascribe to, but rather their actions (since actions are the best barometer for hypocrisy)

  14. #14
    ^^ the most important than anything, either philosophies or in science, the beauty of the products ends up on how it is applied.

  15. #15
    Judaism, Christianity and Islam are monotheistic. Buddhism, Hinduism and the early Catholic Church subscribe to karma and reincarnation. Murder is condemend while compassion is encouraged by most religions. Then there's the Baha'i which is like a confederation of all religions. Religions to some extend do share similarities; perhaps, a hundredth monkey effect, who knows?

    If theologians come together in a room, they would fight over whose religion is superior. If mystics come together, they would embrace each other over the common essence their faith share.

    Even theist religions have their mystical side: Sufism for Islam, Kabala for Judaism and Gnostism for Christianity.

    Religious diversity often reminds me of Gildas' The Many Faceted Jewel of Truth:

    The whole jewel is only complete with all its facets, but at any given moment you can see other views of the centre and of the jewel itself. Some facets are in direct opposition to others, yet they are all necessary to the beauty of the whole.
    Hopefully, everyone will eventually see it that way.

    Religious differences has always been a cause of conflict. Leaving it unaddressed doesn't solve it. I personally believe that focusing on religious similarity is a realistic solution at this moment. Until someone comes along with a better proposal.

  16. #16
    if you want to see the similarities, how about this. is it correct in saying that the biggest similarity in religions is not love but obedience. maybe even blind obedience. read the old testament and see other religion(s) which you have to follow even though what they say seems to be very primitive or even backward for this period of time.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by wassup View Post
    I was listening to DZMM last night, and heard an interesting movement, too bad I didn't get the organization nor representative name. Yet, the proposition offered is promising.

    Rather than difference, the emphasis should be on the similarities. Exhibits on religious establishment showcasing how other religions share commonalities with theirs will greatly educate people.
    I have heard the same sort of thing previously. That would be nice and 'brotherly' but if your religion happens to be the one which says: Thou shall not have any gods before me, which I would take to not even consider the 'happy similarities' of that other deity with yours, then all bets are off.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by rickym View Post
    if you want to see the similarities, how about this. is it correct in saying that the biggest similarity in religions is not love but obedience. maybe even blind obedience. read the old testament and see other religion(s) which you have to follow even though what they say seems to be very primitive or even backward for this period of time.
    Obedience for the dogmatic, love for the enlightened.

    Love has always been the recurring theme of Jesus Christ, Indian avatars like Amma, Buddha particularly boddhisatvas, etc. Speaking of the Buddha, he discourages his followers from accepting his doctrine because he gave it but to verify it through personal experience.

    Today, it seems "primitive or even backward" occurrences in the time of the Old Testament, Crusades, etc. but it is ideal for them if the perspective is shifted to theirs-- reigning mind set at that time. Quoting Conversations with God: No persons do anything inappropriate, given their model of the world. In the context of sociology, that would be called ethnocentricity.

    Sacred prostitution is frowned by Judaism and Christianity. But shifting the perspective to that of pagan practitioners like Canaanites Rahab's people, sacred prostitution is a revered ritual. They believe that God could be glimpsed at, even worship, during sex. Of course, there would always be deviants but that is the ideal behind it.

    It doesn't mean that genocide or slavery should still be condoned. These acts were brought forth as part of the expansion of awareness, and these events should be acknowledged as that.

    Man is in a state of becoming, and so is religion, morality and every thought system invented by man. What works now, may not work in the future; what is "good" now, maybe "bad" in the future. The emphasis should be on maturity, particularly taking responsibility for thoughts and actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onomatopoet View Post
    I have heard the same sort of thing previously. That would be nice and 'brotherly' but if your religion happens to be the one which says: Thou shall not have any gods before me, which I would take to not even consider the 'happy similarities' of that other deity with yours, then all bets are off.
    Conversation with God has an interesting thought about that commandment:
    "You shall love God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul. And there shall be no other God set before Me. No longer will you worship human love, or success, money or power, nor any symbol thereof. You will set aside these things as a child set asides toys. Not because they are unworthy, but because you have outgrown them.

    I believe this is a more mystical interpretation.

    In the end, it would greatly depend on the intention, motive and even maturity of every participant. Our personal system of beliefs, principles, values, etc. gives color and mold our personality reality. The firmer these concepts are personalized, the more tendency to reject all ideas in opposition and accept all those in support. In the same way Zen Buddhism teaches that the state of mind is the reflection of one's reality: an optimistic sees a bright world while the pessimist sees a cruel world.

    Change happens as a result of choice, particularly when the expected effects of the personal system disappoints or its cherished tenet "fails" for the believer. Pain often triggers this change.
    Last edited by wassup; Dec 12, 2007 at 01:32 AM.

  19. #19
    i may just agree with you if you said that the common theme in spirituality is love, but how about religion what is the common theme, isn't it obedience. with islam i think it is obedience, with the new testament it seems to be love, but with the old testament it seems to be obedience. with those two religions alone, they are already close to or even over 50 percent of all the religious people.

    you said "Obedience for the dogmatic, love for the enlightened." as other people have said a significant amount of the religious follow out of fear. couldn't they be considered obedience for the dogmatic? if that is the case, wouldn't it be "obedience for the religious, love for the non-religious but spiritual".

    i've noticed that you've quoted 'conversations with god'. i have skimmed the three books. in fact i just came from a christmas party with a study group of conversations with god. i've used to join their study groups several years ago.

    another thing is 'conversations with god' actually seems to be against religion. i remember having read about religion in book 2. the author asked god what are the other venues to get to god aside from his books, the author asked if religion was one of them. god said that religion is not one of them. he said that before religion man would not question the existence of god and therefore early in time religion could not gain a foothold since man would attempt to reach god without religion. so religion made man insecure of his relationship with god so that religion would be needed.

  20. #20
    How about obedience for the theologians (dogmatic), love for the mystic (enlightened)? Perhaps, this tale better illustrates:

    The True Sound of Truth

    A devoted meditator, after years concentrating on a particular mantra, had attained enough insight to begin teaching. The student's humility was far from perfect, but the teachers at the monastery were not worried.

    A few years of successful teaching left the meditator with no thoughts about learning from anyone; but upon hearing about a famous hermit living nearby, the opportunity was too exciting to be passed up.

    The hermit lived alone on an island at the middle of a lake, so the meditator hired a man with a boat to row across to the island. The meditator was very respectful of the old hermit. As they shared some tea made with herbs the meditator asked him about his spiritual practice. The old man said he had no spiritual practice, except for a mantra which he repeated all the time to himself. The meditator was pleased: the hermit was using the same mantra he used himself -- but when the hermit spoke the mantra aloud, the meditator was horrified!

    "What's wrong?" asked the hermit.

    "I don't know what to say. I'm afraid you've wasted your whole life! You are pronouncing the mantra incorrectly!"

    "Oh, Dear! That is terrible. How should I say it?"

    The meditator gave the correct pronunciation, and the old hermit was very grateful, asking to be left alone so he could get started right away. On the way back across the lake the meditator, now confirmed as an accomplished teacher, was pondering the sad fate of the hermit.

    "It's so fortunate that I came along. At least he will have a little time to practice correctly before he dies." Just then, the meditator noticed that the boatman was looking quite shocked, and turned to see the hermit standing respectfully on the water, next to the boat.

    "Excuse me, please. I hate to bother you, but I've forgotten the correct pronunciation again. Would you please repeat it for me?"

    "You obviously don't need it," stammered the meditator; but the old man persisted in his polite request until the meditator relented and told him again the way he thought the mantra should be pronounced.

    The old hermit was saying the mantra very carefully, slowly, over and over, as he walked across the surface of the water back to the island.

    Mystics know that words are just signpost; words only point the Way. They know deep down that when articles, cultural overtones, etc. are striped, the messages are essentially the same. They understand that they don’t necessarily have to relinquish the faith they were raised in because regardless what facet they look at, they will always see the divinity within the center of the jewel. And when each facet is integrated, true beauty unveils.

    “Obedience” can be an enriching experience depending on the context. Person A takes care of his/her old parents because he/she is obeying God’s commandment. Person B takes care of his/her old parents because he/she obeys what makes his/her heart sings, and in doing so shares the same joy with his/her parents just as he/she is with God rather than to God. Intention, motivation and maturity added new dimensions to the experience.


    Fear and its denominations are a result of lack of understanding. And often for those who lack the understanding instigate (further) fear to justify it: (dogmatic) obedience. “Obedience” may have been quite effective with the reigning mindset then, but may no longer be at another moment. Thus, factions are created. Despite the prevalent “obedience” impression (in a nutshell) on Islam and Judaism (Assuming this is the religion you are addressing when speaking of the Old Testament), these have richness to offer that could not otherwise realized unless actualized from within: enthocentricity.


    Religion was founded on spirituality. It is changing just as man is in a state of becoming. My interpretation of the “anti-religion” sentiment in Conversations with God is how religion has become more and more “ego-centered”—fearful, insecure, taking everything personal, superiority, etc. -- as Eastern thoughts put it. It is a call to be more aware and conscious of our choices. Religion didn’t made man insecure, it only reflected what is in the collective mindset. Religion is an invention of man after all. And as a tool, it can be used for and against its intended purpose; one must invoke free will and discern, and that begins by being aware and conscious.

    Personally, I do not think it is God per se who is speaking in Conversations with God. Rather God was used to draw people’s attention; if it were entitled Conversation with Ted, people will snub it off. Yet, what matters is the message contained rather than the personality of the deliverer. That is main motive anyway. I find much wisdom in there that is present in other faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism expressed in a simple manner. Yet, I do not hold it in absolute, and subject the message therein to my discernment. After all, it is inevitable subjected to the author’s personal system of beliefs, biases, values, etc.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Whats Happening

Sub title

PROMO: The Hangover 3
Join now and get a chance to win advanced screening tickets to The Hangover 3! view more


PROMO: The Great Gatsby
Get a chance to win The Great Gatsby goody bags! view more


The Flick List (Themed)
Guess the theme! Have you seen Twilight, Sister Act and these other movies? Share your thoughts and reviews in here! view more


The Wander List
Have you smashed plates in Tarlac been to the beaches of Bali? Tick your travel exploits off in our Wander List! view more


PROMO: Star Trek
Get a chance to win limited edition Star Trek picnic chairs! view more


Caught Up Default

Sub title

Trailer: Fast and Furious 6
The entire gang's back and badder than ever, reuniting for their most high-octane adventure yet. view more


Trailer: Epic
From the creators of ICE AGE and RIO, EPIC tells the story of an ongoing battle between the forces of good, who keep the natural world alive, and the forces of evil, who wish to destroy it. view more


Review: The Great Gatsby
Though not perfect, The Great Gatsby is a visually dazzling cinematic experience. view more


Review: Star Trek
Visually breath-taking and action-packed, Star Trek: Into Darkness will please casual and hardcore fans alike. view more


Review: Evil Dead
With an absurd amount of violence mixed with tons of terror and scares, Evil Dead is a must-see for horror movie fans. view more




Forums Directory