Do u believe in dracula is it real or a fiction?

[fingolfin]

---

... am i putting words into your mouth?? let me repeat what i've just said ... can you give me one proof of the existence of God?? The bible?? .. do you consider that as placing words into your mouth, i was merely asking you a question. And why do you consider it as lame ?? Isn't the Bible the prime source of God's existence ?? And what are those things that surrounds you that is proof for you that God is real ??

...

read this

and this

.. these are the reason why i said ... But who knows, i'm still open of the possibility that vampires are real.

[IceInHeLL]

fingolfin: am i putting words into your mouth?? let me repeat what i've just said ... can you give me one proof of the existence of God?? The bible?? .. do you consider that as placing words into your mouth, i was merely asking you a question.

Ice: You are asking but giving out a word thus I consider it putting words in my mouth now. If you merely asked as to what is my proof of the existence of God, that would have been different. And if you have been really reading, I already answered this question before and I never (and I do mean NEVER) said anything about the Bible. That is why I said you are putting words in my mouth now.

fingolfin: ... you still don't get it do you??

Ice: And I'm the one not getting it? Funny.

fingolfin: Why keep mumbling about Bram, when Bram got all his ideas from different folklore and he is indeed clever using the name Dracula to confuse people that he is real with the comparison of Vlad the Impaler.

Ice: Although there are creatures found in folklores from different cultures, but they are not vampires (per see). They merely have similarities.

I keep on insisting about Bram Stroker because vampires where popular but not as popular to the modern world until Mr. Stoker introduced it to his novel. And mind you, Mr. Stoker never said that his fictional character is based on the historical Vlad Tepes III. Dracula, in slavic, means "son of the dragon" but it could also mean "son of the devil". And the fictional character of Stoker is fitted for the name.

fingolfin: The way you talk to people is as if we're dumb. But still, they are considered as myth...meaning, unreal. .. it seems you're telling us that we don't know the meaning of a myth. tsk tsk tsk.

Ice: Don't generalize it because that line was specifically addressed to you. If you said that "the way you talk to me (fingolfin) as if I'm dumb", I could have agreed to that because you DID gave me that impression. Tsk...tsk...tsk....

Fingolfin: Isn't the Bible the prime source of God's existence ?? And what are those things that surrounds you that is proof for you that God is real ??

Ice: Maybe for you it is...but not for me. God existed way before the Bible did. If I was born before the age of the prophecies, I will still believe that God exist. I see the world around me as proof of God's existence. I don't believe that we are created by mere accident, do you?

fingolfin: these are the reason why i said ... But who knows, i'm still open of the possibility that vampires are real.

Ice: But when I said that there is no proof that they existed, you insisted that vampires could be for real because there are no proof that indicates that they do not exist. And all I'm saying, that is such a lame argument. I'm sorry to say this but any intellectual will laugh to that one.

There are hundreds of things I could list that do not have proofs of their existence, and do not have proofs that they do not exist as well. I don't think that would be a strong argument that they existed.

Let's assume that vampires are real, and let's base it on Slavic folklore. If a vampire feeds (even if they only feed once a week) and the victim becomes a vampire too, don't you think that all of us will be vampires by now? I don't think they feed on their own kind.

[fingolfin]

[color=teal]Ice: But when I said that there is no proof that they existed, you insisted that vampires could be for real because there are no proof that indicates that they do not exist. And all I'm saying, that is such a lame argument. I'm sorry to say this but any intellectual will laugh to that one.

.. lame arguement ?? Intellectuals will laugh ?? How come ?? That's the whole reason for arguements of "existence or non-existence" of beings. Many believe they exist and many also deny them. Would you laugh on people if they say that God doesn't exist ?? Are the group of people who "believe" should always be considered as "right" ??

.. this arguement of ours is very similar. I believe in God and i believe in vampires. While you on the other hand, believe in God and don't believe in vampires.. Get the drift here ?? Both have histories on their own right. Both has "evidence" on their own right. Is the reason why you don't believe in vampires be that they are EVIL in nature ?? Ever heard of WHAT IS LIGHT WITHOUT DARKNESS ?? You believe that God exist because of "us", the earth and everything in it. But if you say the world around you is proof enough, then how about the "evil" that surrounds us. You seem to forget that point.

[IceInHeLL]

Even the reasoning of "it should exist because there is no proof that it doesn't" is an intellectual argument....did you even consider the vastness of potentials from folklore to fairytales to exist? There is no proof that Snow White didn't exist, so she must have existed? There is no proof that Jack with his magick beanstalk didn't exist...they also have existed?

fingolfin: . Both has "evidence" on their own right.

What evidence are you talking about? I must have missed it in studies. I encountered no concrete evidence of vampire's existence...may it be then or now.

fingolfin: Ever heard of WHAT IS LIGHT WITHOUT DARKNESS ??

The opposite of everything. I do believe in God, thus I believe in evil. But I believe in their existence in the spiritual sense and not some fictional stories your mom may have used to keep you in the house at night. Even in scientific terms, avid fans of the vampire myth tried to explain their existence in the scientifc point of view. All of those seeming explanations failed. Not one single scientific explanation could ever confirm their existence.

[fingolfin]

.. you failed to click the links i gave here

https://www.istorya.net/forums/index....236#msg2166236

.. or you just deny them.

.. you only believe evil to exist in the spiritual sense, how come?? while "good" is present in the physical sense. you're so biased.

[tolstoi]

guys try to search about "Porphyria" - scientifically known as vampire disease

[The_Child]

Did somebody mentioned God?


fingolfin: ... and that line of yours' , one can also compare vampires to God, there are many religions out there but is there concrete evidence of God ??

Of Course God could be proven, It has been proven since circa 6th Century BCE. Talk about such a concept was also present in the intellectual circles in the Indian subcontinent.



. it's simple really. If you believe in intangible things such as God then believing in these things would be easy.

The concept of God is not intangible. If it was then no decent theological system or philosophical system would have developed to such complexity that is present to this day.



.. can you give me one proof of the existence of God?? The bible?? God sprouted from man's own imagination. Man made God to give Man assurance of a "home" after death. But then again, God is also part of ancient STORY-TELLING. But the subject of God is divine that's why people immedietly dismiss arguements about God or should i say because of it's divine nature the " story " of God was easily accepted


Such an idea was already given by a German guy named Ludwig Feuerbach, you might want to check him out. That Man created God from his imagination for Man's own assurance "home" after death. It's Feuerbach's Religious Alienation which Karl Marx took and adapted it to his own thus his famous line "religion is the opiate of the People" but originally that is Feuerbach. God is also a part of ancient STory-Telling, or Mythology but always remember people, that mythology is not necessarily false, that is the point that the thesis and anti-thesis of this thread was not able to recognize , for both recognize myth as something false. But on the contrare, Myth was an expression of Truth during the time when they lack sophistication in technicalities. Myth, expresses truth in someway but it may not be as concrete as we would like to think on it now in our present Times. But back to Man created God, which is of course purely nominal in nature, MAn didnt create God, Man discovered God. As for the Proof for the existence of God you could just google it with St.Anselm Ontological Argument, St. THomas' Five proofs, Descartes Proof of God, uhmm that should be a starter.


This line is what ticks me off:

But still, they are considered as myth...meaning, unreal.

.. it seems you're telling us that we don't know the meaning of a myth. tsk tsk tsk.



BOTH OF YOU ARE SO EXTREME IN YOUR CONCEPTION OF MYTH. tsk tsk tsk.


That's the whole reason for arguements of "existence or non-existence" of beings---> rather the opposite my dear good sir.

"it should exist because there is no proof that it doesn't" ---- > the burden of evidence lies on the accuser. It doesnt have to exist! yet it also doesnt mean that it exists but more logically something with no proof couldnt exist. Get my point? in a simpler note:

A exists because there is no proof of-A, if there is no proof of A then how would we know that there is A? So we PRESUME that because there is no proof for A's existence that A exist. ------> Logical Contradiction

"Contradictions do not exist whenever you think that your are feeling a contradiction, check your premises. You'll find that one of them is wrong" - francisco d'Anconia, Atlas Shrugged p.188




WHAT IS LIGHT WITHOUT DARKNESS ?? -> still there is Light. Darkness is not a necessary cause for Light to exist. Darkness is the absence of light. When there is Darkness there is merely the absence of light.get ma point? Darkness does not exists in its ownself, simply put darkness is the non-existence of Light, darkness doesnt exist if we follow your question.


Would you laugh on people if they say that God doesn't exist ??
the guy you address this question might not or might, but if you'd ask me, I would laugh at all those people who say that God doesnt exists, i would laugh at them so hard because they have a lame argument.

[IceInHeLL]

Dear fingolfin,


I have to say I am quite amused by your easy demeanor of believing everything even without proof. I have read those sites and I didn't say anything about them initially because I thought I never have to honor them with an answer. First and foremost, as I have posted before, I never denied the existence of vampire bats. I have even described them and illustrated how they take the blood from thier victims (which usually are animals and rarely humans). With regards to the "human vampires" that the article was referring about, I think you have to read it well. Even if the allegations are real, that those people indeed suck the blood from the victims, the incidents merely referred to a psychological incapacity instead of the supernatural tendency. I wouldn't call them "monsters", mind you. It is not their fault that vampire folklore have sipped into their weak minds and they seem to make up thier mental incapacity with the belief of supernatural powers. If brought to a court, they will never be guilty of manslaughter...they will be merely put up in a mental institution for insanity.

This thread was created to discuss about vampires and not the mental disorder demonstrated with a mere copycat of the supernatural into a psychiatric case called "vapirism".

It states: Anastasie Dieudonne subsequently confessed that she had been giving the girl a stupefying vegetable drug and then sucking her blood. She was, of course, an unbalanced creature, driven to this dreadful practice by an uncontrollable urge. She was literally, in actual fact, a human vampire.

Does investigation merely stop there? By a mere confession? Do we not take into consideration the mental status of the person? If I would howl to the moon and confess to be a werewolf, will that simple demonstration actually prove that werewolves exist?

On the other site, it states: Sixteen years after Gilles de Rais was excommunicated, strangled and burned at Nantes, Vlad the Second of Wallachia was born in Roumania. The noble boy grew up to be a ferocious military leader and eventually inherited the title Dracul from an ancestor who had earned it as a result of the way he fought against the Turks.

Nothing more might have been heard of Vlad Dracul except for one thing: he was a sadistic pervert, who once impaled 20,000 Turkish invaders on wooden stakes and watched them die in agony. The exploit earned him the titles of Tepes - The Impaler - and also gave him an enduring taste for this particular form of torture.

How could you believe in such a site with clear historical mistakes?! Vlad II Dracul received his title "Dracul" from his induction into the Order of the Dragon (a brotherhood of nobles who took an oath of protecting Christianity from the Muslims). In 1431, he was created a member by Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor, as part of a design to gain political favor for the Catholic Church and to aid in protecting Wallachia against the Ottoman Empire. The Order itself had been founded by Sigismund, as King of Hungary, in 1408. Dracul's son (Vlad III), however, when he siezed the throne of Wallachia in 1448, became known as Vlad the Impaler (Tepes). Dracula (or son of Dracul (dragon) in Slavic) impaled those much Turks and even more. He was considered strict yet ruthless to the enemies. The picture on the right depicted in the site is that of Vlad III (Dracula) and not that of his father, Vlad II (Dracul) as the site claimed. It is so pathtic and what's more pathetic is that people wil actually buy the story without confirming. Furthermore, it is a historical fact that Vlad III Tepes (Dracula) is not a vampire and in no way show any inclination to it. He was just merely ruthless in his forms of punishment.

These information is quite elementary to those who are studying the vampire folklore because of Bram Stoker's use of the name Dracula (which could also mean, son of the Devil in slavic) in a novel with the same title. How could such a site (which you believed in, by the way) can make such a STUPID mistake?! Clearly, this site is not well researched thus it lacks the credibility. Any other sites you want me to visit?

Yours in gratitude as well as in disappointment.




Icei Nhell

[IceInHeLL]

I'm glad that this thread is back to finish some unfinished business.

[Ramini]

nicely said bro..Vlad III was only a source material for Bram Stoker's Novel it was Vlad III who showed unbridled savagery in punishing his enemies and by this the idea of a vampire Dracula was born in Bram Stoker's mind