Ray Comfort: Comfortably Inept and Vacuous

Note: This blog post is full of swearing and ad hominem attacks. It's a rant as much as it is a serious post, so be warned.

Let's take some recent Ray Comfort quotes and see how much fail is contained within, shall we?

Quote One:

Evolution has no explanation for man's beginning. Some of its believers think that perhaps there was a big bang, but they don't know where the materials came from for it to take place. They don't know what was in the beginning, but they are certain that there was no God. They believe the scientific absurdity that life rose out of non-life. It was simply a case of evolution-did-it.

Wow, literally every sentence can be deconstructed, and the results of it won't be favourable for Mr. Comfort. Let's begin:

Evolution has no explanation for man's beginning.

Congratulations, retard. You have managed to point out the fact that a theory that deals with a particular subject matter has no explanatory power when it comes to a completely different subject. Jesus fucking Christ, your stupidity knows no bounds. I mean, really, you might as well have just stated that the Germ Theory of Disease says nothing about the concept of Love. Throw away those vaccines and medicines, people!! They cannot teach you how to love!

Some of its believers think that perhaps there was a big bang, but they don't know where the materials came from for it to take place.

Some people who like cars also like motorcycles, but they don't know how to build one.

(Btw, no one thinks that perhaps there was a big bang. We KNOW there was.) As for not knowing "where the materials came from for it to take place," you're getting dangerously close to doing the classic argument from ignorance bit, but you wouldn't stoop that low, would you?

They don't know what was in the beginning, but they are certain that there was no God.  

You are so fucking stupid it hurts. You keep conflating acceptance of evolutionary theory with atheism. They're NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING, and NEITHER IS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE OTHER, you insipid, insidious, stupid, cretinous liitle man.

And, btw, atheists aren't generally claiming certainty. I know someone who is, though: YOU.

They believe the scientific absurdity that life rose out of non-life.

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES HAS YOUR STUPID ASS BEEN CORRECTED ON THIS SHIT? You continually mix up evolutionary theory, big bang cosmology, and abiogenesis. Seriously, what the fuck? Life arising from non life, which, by the way, can and does happen (aka, it's a FACT) is the discipline of abiogenesis. It has NOTHING to do with evolution. You need to stop conflating the three things, because it results in you setting up constant strawmen, although you still fail in taking even them down. Everything you say revelas more ignorance. Jesus Christ man, I'm half your age. Aren't you fucking embarassed?

It was simply a case of evolution-did-it.



The depth of the irony present in this statement is truly mindbending. Forget the conflation of the theories (again), forget the strawman statement, the ignorance, and the attempts to poison the well. Do you not see that, besides the fact of all that, and the fact that you're wrong (and evolution is a FACT) YOU are the one with the position that can be surmised in such a manner. YOU'RE the one with a position that provides a total non-answer, despite its illusions to the contrary. Check it, asshole:

It was simply a case of god-did-it.

Quote 2:

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with science. It's simply a pseudo-science of an unproven theory, that gives man temporary license to act like an animal.

What in the blue FUCK does "a pseudo-science of an unproven theory" mean? Jesus Motherfucking Christ on a Golden Unicycle!!!!!! That is literally painful to read. How fucking embarassing. What you meant to say, nitwit, is "Evolutionary theory is not science. It is psuedoscience." Of course, you'd still be sadly, laughably, painfully fucking wrong, but at least you'd have made sense, at least grammatically. A "pseudo-science of an unproven theory" wow. Fucking moron.

As for the last bit, I don't even know from where that nonsense is derived, but a) we ARE animals, you stupid tit, and b) if someone accepted the theory of evoultion and it gave them license to "act like an animal," why would it be temporary? Do they stop accepting the theory after a while? Does the license turn into a pumpkin at the end of the night? You can't even get your strawmen and red herrings right.

Quote 3:

In truth, Albert Einstein was no different than most of us when it comes to a belief in God. He was what the Bible calls, an "idolater." He had his own conception of God. He made a god in his own image and was in transgression of the First and the Second of the Ten Commandments. "You shall have no other gods before Me," and "You shall not make yourself a graven image," are not confined to physically shaping a stone or wooden god. The Commandments include a god shaped in the mind.

*Sigh*

Hey, turdboy, come here. Ya, you, Comfort. Come hither, let me whisper into your hairy ear:

"EINSTEIN DID NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD YOU STUPID FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

When Einstein used the word god, he was describing the majesty of the natural world, the universe. He was a pantheist, meaning he was someone who DID NOT BELIEVE IN A PERSONAL, ANTHROPOMORPHIC, CREATOR GOD. He believed that the universe was all that existed, and it was to be regarded with the deepest of reverences.

Do you pride yourself on being factually incorrect in every fucking thing you say? Fucking hell I hate you. You're a lying, scheming, scamming, disngenuous spreader of ignorance and smug stupidity. You're doing a great disservice to humanity, and if I was in charge, you wouldn't be respected. You'd be on fucking trial for fraud. Then you'd be convicted and forced to return every penny you scammed from gullible people before I sent your ass to the slammer, where you'd find out the real meaning behind the word hell.

Asshole.

Online BS in Religion!! LMAO!

Want to be a minister? Get yourself an online BS in religion from Liberty U and prepare yourself for a life in the ministry!!!!

This is way too funny, even in just a light hearted sort of way. I mean, really, even a devout theist should be able to chuckle at this.

On the Impossibility of the Noah's Ark Tale

Noah's Ark. The fable of a 600 or so year old man taking two of every species of non human animal, placing them on a giant wooden boat which he built, and surviving a global flood perpetuated by an angry, omniscient (wait, but if he's omnisc- I know, I know.....just forget it) aboard this giant ship. A silly tale that the majority of Christians have had to admit could never have happened. Yet, and maybe you have to admire their tenacity, there are still those who cling tight to this tale like Noah clinging tight to the sides of his ship as it rocked violently in the ravaging waters that covered the entire (flat, according to the Bible, the greatest science book of all time) Earth.

Guess what people?

It could never have happened.

There are a multitiude of reasons why this is so, and we've all heard several of them. I'm sure most, if not all of those who believe that this tale is literally true or at least profess to) have heard several of them. They probably have a fair amount of practice defending the story against these claims. Hell, Noah's Ark apologist could probably qualify as being resume worthy for some of these people.

Well, get ready to sharpen your apologist skills, because I've got more for ya'!

Now, before I get to the meat of this, let me quickly run through some of the most common, classic arguments as to why this story could not possibly have happened.

• No one could live to be almost a thousand years old. It's not possible.
• There's no way a wooden boat of that size would have been built (by one guy!!), let alone functional.
• How, exactly, did he acquire two of every species, from all across the Earth?
• How did these species survive? What did they eat? What did the carnivores eat? The anteaters?
• What about the climactic requirements these animals had (have)? There are some species that require 100% (or near 100%) humidity to survive (cave dwellers).
• Not a single one of these animals, insects, etc died aboard this ship?

And so on, and so forth.

That alone should suffice, really. I mean, come on, my 18 month old daughter wouldn't buy this shit. But no, I must press onwards.....dare I say, atheist soldier? (oh take a joke).


Fine, let's kick this into overdrive.

1. Everything alive would have suffocated. How could they breathe with all of the plants on earth dead?
2. There's not enough water on the planet to flood the entire Earth up to the highest mountain peaks.
3. The ice caps would not exist in their current form, as there would not have been enough time for them to form in this climate. They would have to form, as the buoyancy of the water would have floated the polar caps off their beds and caused them to break apart. The climate in the last 5000 years has been too warm for the ice caps to have reformed to their current size and density.
4. If the entire Earth flooded, that would mean that salt and freshwater mixed together. This would have resulted in the salination of ALL the water on Earth. There are fish, coral reef and plants who NEED fresh water to survive, and there are fish, coral reef and plants who NEED salt water to survive. This would have resulted in catastrophe for plants, coral reef and fish. These are mutually exclusive inhabitants. They wouldn't survive in a planet with consisted of nothing but salinated water.
5. Absolutely no evidence of a flood in tree ring data.
6. Unequal mountain erosion? How?
7. Ice cores from Greenland contain no layer of sediments, which you would have seen if the entire planet had been flooded. The salinity levels never changed.
8. Egyptian civilization was in full swing during this time, building pyramids, living life. No great extinction, and not one mention of a global flood. Huh.
9. So, since all of the plants would have died due to being flooded with salinated water (not that the salinity actually matters, being flooded with water alone would do it), aside from the suffocation issue, how exactly did the herbivores survive once the flood was over? What did they eat?

Don't trust science? Okay........How about Genesis itself?

Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood. How, in 110-150 years, did the human population grow large enough to build this tower.....and an entire city around it?

And of course, in addition to this, there needed to be enough people to build the aforementioned Pyramids,  and populate the rest of the world, which we know had people spread out far and wide, due to historical records.

You can be a Christian all you want, but at least have the courage to admit that the Noah's Ark tale is just that. A tale, and a laughable one at that. Hearing grown adults actually trying to posit that it actually transpired, and even coming up with such insipid apologist arguments such as the water canopy defense, as I call it, is frankly fucking sad and pathetic. They sound like 4 year olds.

Your Christianity doesn't make you sound ridiculous (at least not overly so). Your literal belief in every facet of the bible does. Stop denying reality and step just a tad bit forward into the light. It was called the Enlightenment for a reason.

Dare I say, Amen?

I am now officially a Master Ninja! (Again)

This is a follow up to This Post

I am now officially a master ninja (second time, as I bested NGB on MN as well)!!

That is all. Now Ninja Gaiden II can go fuck itself for a while. I need a break.....but will I take it? I dunno. Probably not....*sigh*

It's a love/hate thing.

Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism

From wiki (link above):

Anthropocentrism is either the belief that humans are the central and most significant entities in the universe, or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective.[1] The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy. The views are especially associated with certain religious cultures.

I think of anthropocentrism when I have discussions with theists regarding evolution. There are a number of traits that exist (like intellect, speed, strength, climbing ability, climate adaptability, etc), and we are the best, for all intents and purposes, at some of them, but lacking in others. These traits allow different species to adapt and excell in different ways. There's no right or wrong. There's no superior or inferior. It's all about adaptation, propagation, and survival.

Yet people hold our specific attributes to such a high regard, and really, I find that to be nothing but anthropocentrism. I don't see the justification for the view that we are superior. Our intellect is as useful to us as is the ability to play dead, pose as a log, camoflouge oneself like chameleons do, etc to other species. Yet people state that we're so superior, and they use intellect, the thing that we happen to possess (convenient, much?), as the indicator of this.

To me, this is just a self serving viwepoint, borne of a pre-existing idea, and supported by taking one attribute from a field of many equally useful (in the right circumstances) ones and arbitrarily proclaiming that particular attribute to be of the utmost importance or usefulness. And why is this determination made? How is it supported? Why? Because we possess that trait!!! Isn't that just wonderfully circular?

It's circular, it's self serving. It's anthropocentric.

At least in my view. Feel free to disagree (or heap praise upon me!).

Started Playing Ninja Gaiden II Again

After a few succesive events transpiring to take me away from the game (my disappointment with it, frustration, and having a kid) for many months, I decided I could not leave my near year old Path of the Master Ninja (hardest difficulty....very, very hard) playthrough just sitting there; I had to finish the damn thing.


And so, after several months away from Ninja Gaiden I jumped back in. The smart thing to do would be to start up a Path of the Warrior (normal difficulty) playthrough, get some practice in, right? Seeing as how this game on its hardest difficulty is notoriously difficult, it would be stupid to jump right into the hardest difficulty, and no on in their right mind would do so....right?

Ha! I jumped right back into Path of the Master Ninja (POTMN or MN as I refer to it). What a DUMB thing to do. So depressing to see how far I had fallen :(

I spent a good few hours getting my ass kicked and wanting to throw my tv through the window.

So, after a bunch of frustration and laughter, I finally strarted to feel a tiny bit of the old fire, and I have managed to get to Chapter 4 in a couple of days. I'm now at the first save in that Chapter, and it's coming back......slowly.....I have to say I am still dying FAR TOO OFTEN. I swear I have died at least 100 times in the last three Chapters. :(

So, with much frustration, and doing it in the dumbest way possible (lol) I WILL finally finish this damn thing.

And then, the REAL fun begins.

You see, Ninja Gaiden II's older brother is the far superior Ninja Gaiden Black. And to Ninja Gaiden Black, my belovded frined and favorite game ever, I have a message:

I miss you old friend.

When I am done with your younger, more stupid, more irritating brother's hardest difficulty, I promise to return to you. I miss you and your nuanced perfection. Your glorious design, your incredible balance. I'll have to start over, since my old xbox is gone, and I don't have the time for you I once had, but one day, one day I promise to get back to that 22,000,000 MM score and finally break 30million.


If it's the last thing I do.

Thought Experiment. Viewer Participation Required!

I'm looking for some people to 'play along' here.

Here's the video description:

This video requires viewer participation!!



This is an older video that's been sitting on my HDD for 2-3 months. I could never upload it because I wouldn't have garnered enough of a response with it, and I am worried that this still might be premature, but, having now topped the 100 subscriber mark (thanks to you all), I thought that perhaps I'd have enough people seeing it to get a few solid responses.


I hope. If not, well, I'll take it down and reuplaod in a year when I have 300 subs ;)


Sorry for the mediocre vid quality.

The Evolution of Freddy Krueger CAST YOUR VOTE!!

Freddy Krueger has seen changes in his look ranging from slight alterations to drastic overhauls in his look since 1984's seminal A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Let's have a look at how the dream demon changed, shall we? Check the pics below, then vote in the 2 polls beneath the pics!!

A Nightmare on Elm Street

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare

Wes Craven's New Nightmare

Freddy Vs Jason

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (the unnecessary remake)

I guess as the host of this game, I should go first. So, before you all have to vote, I'll throw my neck out there :)

Well, as much as I HATE to vote against my favorite Nightmare film (the original, of course, although DW and WCNN are excellent), and I honestly really do mean HATE, (it's not hyperbole in the least), I have to vote for the aesthetic design featured in Wes Craven's New Nightmare. While the burn look has been replaced with more of a peeled look, he looks so fucking menacing, and, perhaps more importantly (well, okay not more) is the fact that he looks old, and that's what Craven had envisioned for the character to begin with. He looks old and haggard, and that just adds to the sinister nature of the character. Then you toss in the AMAZING looking, much more organic, ''bone claw'' as I like to call it, the added thumb blade (dexterity be damned), and the trenchcoat, and you have yourself the hobo from HELL. And I think that's exactly what Craven had in mind from the start, based on his childhood encounter.

As for the one I like the least (actually, I HATE this look), as much as I really don't like what they did to him in Freddy's Dead (seriously, the actually aimed to make him less scary, and well, they suceeded....he looks like he's been rubberized) I am going to have to vote for (surprise surprise) the remake's take on it. Just......what the fuck. He looks like a blob of shit, and I say realism be damned (no offense to real burn victims, I cannot even begin to imagine the horror). I want a demonic looking Krueger, not one who just came off the operating table where they did skin grafts.

The Freddy Krueger Look You Prefer?

The Freddy Krueger Look You Like the Least?

Atheism 101 (Resources for those New to the idea of Atheism)

Some of My Resources for People New to the Idea of Atheism

One of my very first posts here was entitled Atheism is a Religion? and The Burden of Proof.

I just went back made a few changes to that post. The new version can be seen here:

http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/01/atheism-is-religion-and-burden-of-proof.html

I have added a few things and fixed up a few trouble areas. I believe this post will be much more useful to anyone stubling across this blog who may be interested in atheism in any regard, but is new to the idea and quite unaware of the sort of Atheism 101 type concepts. I have added some things to this end, like an operational definition of atheism.

Also, for anyone who fits this description, you may also want to check out:

http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/02/youre-not-agnostic.html

and perhaps:

http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-are-atheists-so-angry.html

Thanks, and science bless ;)

Follow Up to the Epinions.com Situation

Well, if you read the Previous Post you kow I had been unfairly accused of plagarism by a couple of six shootin cowboys with hands too fast for their own good over at http://www.epinions.com/

Well, I have since delted the reviews in question and re-uploaded them with a disclaimer and a link to the external review. This seems to be working thus far, as I now have Very Helpful ratings for all of my reviews as opposed to the Not Helpful rating and comments that refer to me as a theif (Stealing from myself, the nerve of me!).

Well, I have come into contact with a very nice advisor there by the name of Tom and he's been helping me and offering me advice. Nice guy. I also got advice from another nice person or two.

No apologies from the two cowboys, although, to be fair, I don't know that the one has been online since. The other one has, for sure, and didn't say shit to me. Nice, eh? EDIT: The one has since apologized and explained his actions. The other one has not, and I KNOW he's been online.

Terrible Experience with Epinions.com

I signed up at Epinions.com earlier, figuring I could write some new reviews and also add a bunch of reviews from my extensive back catalgue, and hopefully help some more people out. Well, apprently when a guy named magx01 signs up at a site, and posts three reviews from his blog, called magx01.blogspot.com, he's not bringover his own work, he's stealing.

Ya, two advisors there googled my reviews, foud one here, one on gamefaqs, and one on gameronfire, and, rather than assuming that since they are all named magx, and this blog is listed in my epinions profile as my personal website, that I am amgx and I post my reviews to several places, NO NO NO!! they somehowe both leap to the conlcuion that I miust be stealing! And so I now have a tarnished record as a plagarist, for posting my own work. And they don't even have a Private Message system there. HOW STUPID!

I'm amazed that the fact that the name is magx across all three sites didn't clue these guys into the fact that it's the same person. They just automatically assume I'm stealing. They don't even give you a chance to prove otherwise. NOPE. They rate your review NOT HELPFUL, whicch means no one will read it, and they commented on each review with a link to my review on the external site and the accusation.

Fucking amazing. And to think I spent 2 HOURS writing them a nice review of the Nightmare on Elm Street Collection DVD Box Set.

Nice treatment, eh?

Note: Follow Up

A Nightmare On Elm Street 2010: ON TRIAL

Case number C60199H6 is now in session.

Judge: You may now be seated.

Judge: "will the defendant please stand? Mr. Nightmare 2010, how do you plead?"


AOES 2010: "Not guilty, your honour."


Judge: "Plea of not guilty has been entered into the record. Please be seated."

......Some time later

Nightmare 2010 under Cross Examination

Prosecution: "Mr Nightmare 2010, may I call you 2010 for the sake of brevity?"


2010: "Yes, you may."


Prosecution: "Okay, 2010, you say that you are not guilty of living an unjustified existence, correct?"


2010: "That's correct."


Prosecution: "So, it is your contention that you actually [b]DO[/b] have a reason to exist?"


2010: "Yes."


Prosecution: "Let me ask you a question, then. Is your script better than 1984's?"


2010: "......"


Judge: "2010, please answer the prosecution's question."


2010: ",,,,No, my script is not better."


Prosecution: "I see. Is your dialogue better?"


2010: "....No....."


Prosecution: "Interesting. Are you more or less imaginative than 1984?"

2010: "......Less....." (hangs head in shame)

Prosecution: "Uh huh, uh huh. So, tell me, were you better paced?"


2010: "No, sir."


Prosecution: "Huh. Better music?"


2010: "No sir."


Prosecution: "What about your interpretation of the Freddy character? Was yours more interesting?"

2010: ".....Well.........n....no....no sir." (hangs head even lower)

Prosecution: "Did you forgo cheap jump scares for real suspense and tension? Atmosphere? Creepy set pieces and/or events?"


2010: "No......no......no, and.....no."


Prosecution: "Would you say 1984 is unwatchable?"


2010: "No sir."


Prosecution: "I see. Would you say 1984 is a bad movie, a good movie, or a great movie??


2010: "A great movie, sir. A genre classic, really."


Prosecution: "Uh huh..... Tell me, did the effects hold up okay over the years?"


2010: "Mostly, yes sir."


Prosecution: "In fact, was the wall scene not actually superior in the 1984 version? You know, the one 26 years your senior? The one that utilized $5 worth of spandex sheet draped across a hole in the wall as opposed to your fancy shmancy CGI effects that looked like a deleted scene from The Mummy?"


2010: "......Yes....."


Prosecution: "I see. So, tell me then, if you are not better directed, better written, more creative, imaginative, suspenseful or scary, and there's nothing wrong with the original, and the original is widely available....it is widely available, is it not?"


2010: "Yes.......*sigh* Yes sir, it is."


Prosecution: "Okay, 1984 is a great movie that is perfectly watchable today and widely available....and you add nothing of any real value to its legacy, yo fill no gaps, nor enhance anyone's experiences with the original......Tell me, 2010, Why do you exist?


2010: "........"


Judge: "2010, please answer the prosecution's question."


2010: "........"


Judge: "2010, please answer the prosecution's question.!"


2010: "........"


Judge: "2010, please answer the prosecution's question!!"


2010: "........"

Judge: "2010, please answer the prosecution's question!!!"


2010: "What....what was the question again....?"

Prosecution: "Why. Do. You. Exist. ?"

2010: ".... *whispering* .......money."

Prosecution: "Please speak louder, 2010"

2010: "MONEY!!!!!! OKAY? MONEY!! MONEY!!! MONEY!!! MOMEY!!! That's why I exist. Money." *begins to sob uncontrollably*

Prosecution: "Your honour, I'd like to note that the prosecution now rests. No further questions your honour."


Judge: "What say you, councilmen? Do the defence have any further use of your defendant in this line of questioning?"


"No, your honour, the defence.....the defence rests."


Judge: "Well, then it is the position of this court that 2010 is guilty of all charges, and now, having been found to have no reason, no justification for his existence, must be converted to VHS format, whereupon he will be endlessly returned to video stores without being rewound first, and he will have to wait patiently while the person who rented him out fishes for change in his pockets in an exasperated fashion, so he can srape together the fifty cents or whatever it is to pay the fine in order to rent the movie again, and return it without rewinging it. They will be doomed to repeat this cycle over and over, for eternity. And the film that you will watch during the home portion of each of these cycles?

*dramatic pause*

Judge: Yourself!

*crowd gasps*

Judge: CASE CLOSED

A Nightmare On Elm Street 2010 Remake Review

Note: This review is going to structured a bit differently (okay, a lot differently) than one would expect a movie review to be structured. I am going to compare my pre-viewing assessment of this film with my post-viewing assessment to see how they compare, and then I will offer a list of pros/cons and good sized summation, both pertaining directly to this film.

Anyone reading this, please, if you wish, let me know how this novel (to me, at least) format works for you compared to a more traditional reivew, and of course, feel free to agree or disagree with my assessment of this film.

Initial Thoughts on the ANOES Remake: How Accurate was I?

Well, I have now seen the A Nightmare on Elm Street remake. I did not spend any money on it, but I got the chance to see it free and so I jumped at it. I had struggled with my resolve not to give in and pay to see this (I didn't want to support it, or the general remake trend) and I am sad to say my resolve was faltering, but, serendipitously, I got the chance to see it for free, and so, as I already stated, I jumped at that chance, and have now, for better or for worse (we'll soon find that out muahahaha....lame, I know.....muaahahah- okay, I'll stop) seen the movie.

So, what I am going to do here is post the impressions I'd had of the remake going in, based upon the large number of reviews and tons of viewer feedback that I had read online (and also good old fashioned inference based upon previous works of the people involved and the current state of American horror), and then after each point, add my present standing on that point, since I have now seen the movie.

And so, what we will find out is how accurate I was in my initial (negative) assessments of the merits (or lack thereof) of this new 2010 version of a 1984 genre classic.

Note: I will put the original statements in black, and my accuracy assessments in red.

1) Freddy's look. I know that's more realistic, but he lost the demonic look that I loved. However, I am willing to admit a part of this is likely nostalgia.

Ugh.......

I still hated it at first, but by the end I merely disliked it.....strongly. Okay, perhaps mildly. If they do make 2 more sequels, and I do see them, I suppose by the end of it I'll have gotten to the point where his new face is at least no longer distracting.

2) HIS VOICE!!Freddy sounded demonic. Now he sounds like a breathless Rocky Balboa. Not scary in the least and this alone is a huge dealbreaker for me.

Absolutely fucking horrible. A slow talking, mouth breathing, Dark Knight sound alike. No, just....no. I refuse to budge on this point even a millimetre. Oh, wait, save for one redeeming quality. The laugh. Haley approximated Enlgund's exquisite balance between sinister and maniacal and he did so without trying too hard to sound like Englund. In doing so, I'd say he did a great job with the laugh. It immediately called to mid Englund's, as it was similar, but not in a way that made you nostalgic nor angry for him trying to copy it. Well done on that one!

3) Based upon several reviews and viewer feedback it seems as though the ''scares'' were pretty much the loud BAM sound followed by a sudden appearance of Freddy. I HATE the overuse of jump scares. It's cheap, cheesy, manipulative and indicative of the fact that these guys are creatively bankrupt and don't understand shit about horror or what Craven did with the original ANOES.

This wasn't quite as bad as I expected, but still bad and indicative of the things I said it would be. It wasn't AS bad, but definitely, definitely over relied upon.

4) I read that the nightmare scenes are always telegraphed via musical and aesthetic changes. Part of what I loved with the original series is you often weren't immediately aware that you were in 'dream world' if you will. There were some surprises. Some.....unknown. Some...suspense.

Every single one of them, save for maybe one (can't recall for sure) was telegraphed via aesthetic changes, as I said. The dream sequences themselves were also unimaginative and unoriginal.

5) The footage I have seen features a very wooden Nancy. Langenkamp might not win any awards but at least she had expression and depth.

She actually wasn't that bad. Not great, but certainly not horrible, and the way her character was handled sort of approached (but did not match) what Craven did with his Nancy. One of the better elements of the film, I thought.

6) The people involved do it solely for money, and they are hacks. They didn't even care to try and involve any of the original people. No Craven, no Saxon, no Lagenkamp and no Englund.

Now, this is a 'reboot' so this makes some sense. Well, Englund could have played Krueger but the rest make sense. Except for one: Craven. They didn't bother to get input from the one man who truly understood Krueger, and the one man who had vision. Idiots.

Not much to add here, although I guess I can say that, while I would never pick Bayer to direct another one, his direction wasn't the main issue here.

7) I don't want to support this remake bullshit. They fucked up FF13, they destroyed Halloween, the are fucking up Krueger (although I can't fully say this until I see it, which of course I'll end up doing at some point, let's be real, but hopefully for free after my brother buys the DVD) and they have completely destroyed so many others. Black Christmas, Prom Night, Psycho (not that I'm a huge fan of the original), Dawn of the Dead, etc etc etc

Saw it free, so I can still feel that I did not betray my sensibilities on this one.

8) WHERE THE FUCK IS THE ORIGINAL SCORE?? It's the best damn horror score EVER.

True, and a damn shame. The only element that was present from it was the little piano melody, but it only made it into the film for a brief moment or two.

9) CGI. The clip of Freddy coming out the wall looks so fucking fake now, whereas the budget shot with no CGI from 1984 still looks better today.

Absolutely true. In fact, the few scenes that they did copy from the original both felt out of place (they were just haphazardly thrown in) and sucked in this one. I won't describe them all for the sake of brevity, but the scene in the original with Tina in the bodybag and the ensuing boiler room scene were fucking destroyed in the new one with a limp, shitty, weak ass approximation of only half of the original scene, and even then, it sucked.

The one good one was the bedroom scene involving Kris (Tina) and whatever his name was (Rod) which I thought actually matched the original. They did i a bit differently, and I'd say they did really well with it. The few omissions where made up for by the new way in which Kris/Tina is physically manipulated by Freddy in that small space. Evocative of a classic Poltergeist scene, without feeling like a ripoff of either that or the NOES scene from which it drew inspir- well, copied. Kudos to them on this one.

10) They all know what's going on way too early, and they come to know it way too easily. The original had a slow, suspenseful buildup where Nancy and co. tried to piece together what was happening.

Yes and no. They don't get the whole story right away. But the whole ''let's piece together this mystery'' thing starts like 5 minutes in to the movie, which does destroy a lot of the tension and pacing.

Maybe I'll end up liking it, but I doubt it. The guys behind the project just don't see horror the way I do, and I don't think I'll enjoy what they did to ANOES. Still, I admit I may be wrong. There's .000003% chance of it :)

Well, I don't love it, but, surprisingly, I don't hate it. It's....okay. Ho hum. Here are just a few (again, for the sake of brevity) of the hits and misses that I have not mentioned thus far:

Misses:

1) Haley's Freddy not only looked and sounded worse, he moved in a more boring manner, and he did not do anything creative. He stalked his victims in a slow and linear fashion, typical of more mundane slasher villains. His mannerisms and actions were just bland, and Haley brought nothing new, save for one small tick, a swishing sort of thing he did with the blades, conveying Freddy's anxiousness and desire to slice and dice (this was a decent little tic, I thought). Other than that, nothing, and he lost so much.

2) He lost that 1950's spaghetti western swagger, the running (he never ran once, for fuck's sake he's not Jason or Michael!), the toying with his victims in ways other than the slow approach/oh I'm gone/boo mechanic so often utilized in this one (remember the amazing alley scene, or the jail scene with Rod? Ya, none of that) and of course the voice. Another thing that sucked where his lines, but that was the damn writers' fault. Man, for the most part, they wrote some shitty dialogue for everyone, not just Haley, but his especially....ugh. And they stole lines straight from Nightmare 4 and FvsJ, but they were shitty and out of place lines.

3) The kills were terribly uncreative. The best one was one lifted directly from the original. That right there should tell you something.

4) They did not develop the character of Nancy's mother at all, nor did they really develop her relationship with her daughter. Thus, they lost one of the strongest and central elements of the original film: the mother daughter relationship, and how the dynamic shifted as the film progressed, so that by the climax and subsequent denouement, Nancy had become the parent in the relationship, and consequently, had learned to take care of herself.

This not only set up the final confrontation with Krueger, but it was also a statement regarding the changes to the so called ''nuclear'' family that had been rapidly progressing during that decade. Nancy's father was nowhere to be seen (not a statement, I assure you).

5) The pacing. Much too quick, and far too many dream sequences/too much Freddy.

Hits:

1) The supporting cast wasn't that bad. Some rough moments here and there, but really, not that bad.

2) The last 15 minutes or so, up until the HORRIBLE last 2 minutes, were quite good, and in those 12-15 minutes, I saw some actual damn passion, or at least, some glimpses of it, a bit of creativity, and hell, even a genuinely creepy couple of moments. This, Kris' (Tina's) bedroom scene (although the preceding outdoor sequence SUCKED SO HARD compared to the amazing alley sequence in the original) and a few other moments were pretty good.

3) They did NOT make Freddy innocent, as I had heard they had considered doing (and had in fact even done, in early script drafts). This is crucial. You make pre-dead Freddy an innocent victim, you make Freddy Krueger a sympathetic character. You make him sympathetic, suddenly you feel sad for him rather than afraid of him.

4) Freddy had a few genuinely good lines amidst his mediocre and downright bad ones. Of course, one of his very best was stolen from Nightmare 1 (and the still managed to miss a word) but a few of the new ones were good, and creepy).

5) Very good one here: Freddy was menacing, dark, and serious. No clowning around here, and that's how I like him. He toys with his victims, but in a deliberately malicious, evil way. No flying around on a broomstick in a witch costume shouting out ''I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog, too!'' like in Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare. While that was an admittedly funny and fun, campy moment from a cheesy, campy, fun (but not scary) 5th sequel, I'm very glad they avoided going in that direction for this film. This was the ANOES 1, 2 and 7 Krueger, and that's good..

6) Along the same lines as the last point, the entire movie maintained a serious tone, or at least tried to (some of the shitty lines nearly killed it). It was dark and dreary, and almost 100% sans jokes, which was great. The teens weren't partying it up and telling stupid jokes, and they weren't even heavily stereotyped. Both of these things were refreshing, and demonstrated that the producers and Sam Bayer had at least enough knowledge of the series to realize that this is not your typical ''kill the sluts and drug users and have your virgin be your ''final girl'' slasher movie.

Summation:Old comment: So, a note to Platinum Dunes: I want my fucking childhood back, you assholes. I don't recall putting it on the market, so I have no idea how you fuckers bought and sold it, but I want it back. Now, give it back, or I'll......I'll......kil- no, no, that's not it......I'll, I'll, beat- no, no, that's not it either.....I'll I'll.....su-no, no that's not it.....Ah, Hell. I'll keep blogging about you!!! And you don't want that, trust me. I have a HUGE audience and immeasurable influence. I can get people to boycott your ass, and let me tell you, you'd lose at least $23.00. You want to test me? You want to test me motherfuckers? Go ahead, if you think it's worth $23.00, go right the fuck ahead, you childhood stompin fart brains!!!!

New Comment: Well, Platinum Dunes did not completely destroy this movie, but they truly and honestly made a movie that need not exist. It did not contribute to the series in any meaningful way, it will never be heralded as a genre classic, it was almost entirely unable to upstage the 26 year old original, and in fact, even (mostly) failed when it tried to directly copy it.

However, they did treat Freddy with the right idea, keeping him serious and sinister, and at least the scenes all didn't take place in the light of day. I also thought that the introduction of micronaps made for a great, and logical plot device, which served to increase the tension (what little of it there was) although they predictably fucked up the science of it somewhat, and of course, they also mostly used it for jump scares.....*sigh*.

The Nightmare on Elm Street Remake is like a glossed up version of the original classic with most of the originality and nuance removed, and in is place was too quick of a pace and too much standard genre fare. It was also rushed, as I already alluded to several times, and crucial elements like Nancy's absent (in different ways) parental influences were completely absent, which took away from the significance of her eventual resilience and finding the courage to fight back (which actually sucked in this one compared to the original). Also, the kills were mediocre and not particularly interesting , horrifying, or visually arresting, save for one ( of course a copy from ANOES 1) and Freddy was a heavy breathing, slow talking, almost lisping weirdo who exuded no real personality. Not like Englund's Freddy did.

Still, the bones of a Nightmare film will, or at leatst, shold, always make for a good horror story, and I guess I can say that, technically, this one was probably better than The Dream Child and Freddy's Dead, although those ones at least had campiness to them that lends itself to repeat viewing over the years. This one, on the other hand, lacks both that factor AND the impact and resonance of the perfect mixture of deeper thematic undertones and excellent, nuanced horror, leading to an average at best Nightmare flick, and a pretty good horror flick in general.

I can say this: I enjoyed this more than any other horror movie I have seen in the last few months, although even my love for all things Freddy could not elevate this higher than the last few greats I have seen in the last year or so, both coming out of France: Haute Tension (High Tension) and A L' Interiur (Inside).

Both of those are absolutely excellent horror films that I recommend anyone reading this who loves horror to try and get their hands on and eyes in front of, although they are VERY brutal films that will require a strong disposition and a strong, healthy heart to be able to handle literally an hour and a half of solid tension and suspense. Those two movies are frightening and disturbing, and I absolutely loved them. They were the two best horror films I have seen since the seminal horror film coming out of the UK in 2006, the absolutely effective The Descent.

I will be looking towards France for the next while to get my horror fix, as this movie, while perhaps better than most of the other American ones I have seen as of late (thanks mostly to the characters created by Wes Craven and not much of anything these guys did themselves, save for a select few cool scenes) just will not cut it for me.

I guess they can be commended for making a good horror film at a time where good American horror films are few and far between, and this movie is probably their best remake, which isn't saying much, since, save for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake (which might actually be better than this one, but I haven't seen it since 2003, so I need to rewatch it before making a verdict on that one) the rest of them, from what I have seen ad heard, have fucking sucked ass.

Ah well, I have only spent actual money on two of them (TCM and F13th) and one of those was actually good. The Friday the 13th remake blew chunks, and I will say that I am soooo glad that they didn't give this movie that treatment...yuck. At least this one is somewhat competent, on some levels.

FINAL VERDICT:

I will score the A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 an underwhelming but competent 6.5/10 when assessing it as a standard horror film (decent acting, cool villain, medicore scares, not particularly inspired, pacing issues).

When compared to the film it so unnecessarily 'remade.' I feel that I must rate this film a disappointing 4/10.

QUESTIONS/FINAL WORD:

Perhaps it's just me, but shouldn't a movie be remade if it's warranted, and if the remake surpasses/improves upon the source material? If it doesn't, I have to ask, as I find myself doing since seeing this movie......

WHAT'S THE FUCKIN POINT?

Never Sleep Again: The Nightmare on Elm Street Legacy Review

I'll say it right off the bat: This is absolutely a must see for Nightmare fans. Now, before you roll your eyes and assume that this is the typical fanboy-gushing-over-any-product-related-to-his-favourite-nostalgia-wrapped-series, I want to tell you right off that I was entirely skeptical of this package, and hesitated for quite some time before finally deciding to give it a shot (after reading much about it online).

I will readily admit that I thought this was going to be a cheap cash in on the buzz surrounding the remake, and while the timing may be a bit....suspect (or at least can't hurt) I can say that regardless of what you may think it started out as, this thing is a well crafted and clearly loved piece of film, into which a LOT of work clearly went, and absolutely, in no way, strikes one as a cheap cash in. This thing was lovingly and meticulously crafted.

The DVD package contains the main feature, Never Sleep Again: The Nightmare on Elm Street Legacy, which amazingly clocks in at an astonishing four hours. Yes, 4 hours. The documentary consists of interviews with cast and crew from all 8 of the Nightmare films (yes, Freddy vs. Jason is included, although I myself do not count it as a Nightmare film per se....and neither do some of the NOES crew, as you will learn) interspersed with very well done stop motion animation, film clips, behind the scene footage, deleted scenes, production and set photos, and more. Included in the interviews are, as you would expect, Wes Craven, Robert Englund, Bob Shaye (who I do not particularly like, to be honest, although I do have him to thank for many memories), Rachel Talalay, and Heather Langenkamp. However, what really sets this documentary apart is the very exhaustive list of people interviewed.

See, the films are discussed in chronological order, and so cast and crew interviews are edited together to form a cohesive discussion about each film. This editing is seamless, and the filmmakers should be commended on taking what must have been 40 or more hours of footage and editing them down to a precise, coherent, well paced 4 hours. The filmmakers tracked down as many people as they possibly could, leading to an extensive list of writers, directors, producers, actors and actresses, set design people, and special effects people being included. Hell, even an extra was interviewed (Girl on Bus #2 from ANOES2: Freddy's Revenge is included, most likely because she starred on a TV show with Heather Langenkamp, but still). They got basically anyone you could think of, save for Johnny Depp and Patricia Arquette.

Some of the names present include Lisa Zane, Rodney Eastmen, John Saxon, Tuesday Knight, Monica Keenan, Brooke Theiss, Lisa Wilcoxx, JoAnn Willette, Jsu Garcia (aka Nick Corri) and more. Hell, they even managed, after a LOT of effort, to track down Mark Patton (the infamous Jesse from part 2) who left Hollywood long ago for the anonymity of a private life in Mexico. And you'll be glad they did, as he provides some of the most fun moments of the documentary. He's a very entertaining interview, and, as I alluded to earlier with the packages comment, he and the others from A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge finally all, as a group, discuss, at length (no pun intended) the long standing rumours/debates regarding the supposed homoerotic undertones present in that particular entry into the series. This discussion was very entertaining to watch, and there's even a moment in the extras where Mark recreates a couple of moments from his infamous bedroom dance. Hat, hips, pelvic thrusts and all!

The cast and crew discuss all aspects of making a NOES film, including successes and failures, on and off set mishaps, time and budgetary constraints (which plagued the series, thanks to Bob Shaye and New Line), and all sorts of other things, including some fairly candid mentions of on and off set tensions, especially, but not limited to, those between Bob Shaye and Wes Craven. Craven discusses his distaste for much of the sequels (especially part 2), his reluctance to include the Marge/car scene at the end of the original ANOES (Bob Shaye pushed for it) and more. There are tons of details to take in. We learn that there were several scripts written Freddy's Dead, including one by two guys, one of whom was Peter Jackson (which I myself did not know)!

We hear Robert Englund express his distaste for much of ANOES 2, talk of cast and crew falling in love with eachother on set (much of this is centered on Patricia Arquette), descriptions (and video footage) of onset accidents, battles with the MPAA (including footage of unedited vs edited scenes), Wes Craven losing the rights to the characters he created (and losing out on a ton of money), and we even learn that two of the Nightmare sequels were actually filmed without completed scripts. It got so bad that, due to pressure put on them by New Line, they were literally writing scenes and filming them on the same day, and this actually went up to 2 weeks prior to release for one of the films. And so on.

There's a LOT of information and footage to digest here. There is even a touching few moments where a choked up Bob Shaye reflects both on New Line and what the Nightmare films did for both him and his company, and the events leading up to New Line being merged into Time Warner, its parent company, and Shaye's eventual, well, ousting from the company that he built over the course of 40 years. I actually felt bad for the guy, I was very touched by this.

In fact, I was so touched that, as a huge Nightmare fan, at the end of four hours of seeing people I grew up watching reflect back on films I loved, and literally grew up with, followed by Bob Shaye looking back on all this, filled with emotion, I was surprised to find myself actually momentarily tearing up in one eye (the right one lol). I'm not one to give much concern for actors and such, I don't care for attaining autographs and I have no idols, but I really discovered how much the Nightmare on Elm Street series actually means to me, and even though I was cognizant of this fact all my life, the depths of this attachment really surprised me. I really, really love that damn series of films, and this documentary was both a fantastic look back, and, as much as this pains me to say this, and (remake or no remake) a sad goodbye.

In addition to the main feature, there is a hefty assortment of extras to enjoy. These special features do not feel like discarded material thrown in to buttress the size of the package (for those of you who keep snickering at my continued use of the word package, read on, as I have a tidbit for you relating to ANOES 2: Freddy's Revenge that will likely interest you) but actually constitute a few hours of excellent material.

The extras include over an hour of extended interviews (with a bunch of interesting asides and anecdotes that did not make it into the already insanely lengthy main feature, such as cast and crew expressing doubts regarding the ANOES remake), a NOES locations piece, which takes you on a journey to various iconic locations used in the first film, a 7 minute or so sneak peek at Heather Langenkamp's upcoming documentary entitled 'I am Nancy,' features on ANOES comics and books, the music, the fans, and much more.

In all, there are 8 hours of content in total spanning two discs. That's right, 480 minutes of A Nightmare on Elm Street material on two glorious DVD's. This package, topped off with some excellent artwork, is available for $29.99 (US), and, if you order from the official site you get an included 12" x 18" poster, which, if you order by June 1st, will be personally signed by Heather Langenkamp. You also receive free shipping. If you want the DVD sans poster and free shipping, it is available on amazon.com for 17.49.

This truly is an excellent documentary for both casual Nightmare fans and Nightmare aficionados, as even the diest of die hard fans, who have scoured the earth for information related to the series for the last 26 years, will still hear and/or see many things in this that they previously had not known.

This is the absolute best horror documentary I have ever seen, and frankly, I would be inclined to hazard a guess that it is the best horror documentary ever made, period. In fact, I don't think it too presumptuous to state right now that this amazing horror documentary might never be bested. Ever. Incredibly easy recommendation for Nightmare fans, and quite likely even worth a look for horror fans in general who might not be into the Nightmare series. This documentary might even change their mind. It's just brilliant. Truly.

Overall Score: 10/10. 

BUY NOW:

How to Backup your Blogger Blog Template in 5 Easy Steps

Note: HERE'S a tutorial on how to quickly and easily backup your entire blogger blog in 5 easy steps!

Want to backup your blogger blog's template? Excellent idea. You never want to encounter a situation where you lose your template, let's say in the course of making changes to it, and you make irrevocable edits and find yourself stuck with a broekn blog template. I'll show you how to backup your template in 5 easy steps.

1) Sign in to Blogger.com. Once there, click layout.

Note: The following pics can be clicked to zoom in for much easier viewing. You may find them a bit small at default.

2) Click the edit HTML button in the middle top (between fonts and colors and pick new template).

 3) Click download full template

4) Click save when prompted.

5) Save to your computer. I suggest creating a seperate folder for this and other blog files (I use one called Blogspot blog) and save it to there. The format will be in XML (.xml file) which can be read by the blogger software.

Once saved, you can access the file at any time to re-upload if your template happens to get lost. Good luck, and I hope enjoy your simple and easy template backup experience!

Easiest, Fastest Way to Backup Blogger Blog

Note: HERE'S a tutorial on how to easily and quickly backup your blogger template.

Want to backup your blogger blog? Excellent idea. You never want to encounter a message informing you that your blog is lost. I'll show you how to do do it in 5 easy steps.

1) Sign in to Blogger.com. Once there, click settings.

Note: The following pics can be clicked to zoom in for much easier viewing. You may find them a bit small at default.

2) You will see the options for import, export an delete blog. Click export.

3) Click download blog.

Note: These next two steps are pretty self explanatory, but I will include them for anyone who may be newish to computing. Please do not take the inclusion of these two steps as an insult or condescension. Most users will be able to simply skip them :)

4) Click save.

5) Save to your computer. I suggest creating a seperate folder for this and other blog files (I use one called Blogspot blog) and save it to there. The format will be in XML (.xml file) which can be read by the blogger software.

Once saved, you can access the file at any time to re-upload if your blog files happen to be lost, and you can also use this file to import to another blog, say if you're moving to wordpress or creating a secondary backup blogger blog. This makes transfering your blog or re-uploading it as easy as a few mouse clicks. All you'd have to do at that point would be to select import blog (see step 2) and away you go.

Good luck, and I hope enjoy your simple and easy backup experience. I wish I had found this option a lot sooner, as I ended up playing around with a few different 3rd party programs which were making offline copies of my blog, but not giving me one simple file which contained all of my blo content, which is all I wanted from the get go, not some website index (which is nice, don't get me wrong, and I have kept it for possible future use). If you happen to be interested in this process, I was most successful with HTTrack which is free and not necessarily convoluted, but not nearly as easy as this method which I just recently employed.

Either way, bon fortuna! (not sure what language that is lol).

Twenty Five New (Religious) Commandments. Like a New Ten Commandments, But Better! ) UPDATED)

UPDATE: Video released, see HERE if you so desire.

As I stated in a previous, related blog, The Lost Commandment? I was working on a new set of religious commandments. Basically, some rules/laws/commandments that I felt would be much more appropriate, if we are to assume we need them at all. I had come up with 5 in a matter of well, seconds, perhaps one minute, when I was hit by a thought and changed the idea of the blog from several new religious commandments to one supposedly lost one, which I stated that I hoped did exist and we'd one day locate (not really believing this, of course).

Well, I said at the end of that blog that I was going to finish off that initial list (it had been 5 in number that that time) and so, without further adieu (?) here are my list of ideal religious commandments, which, as I said in that blog, are of course modeled after (but not specifically aimed at...per se) the Ten Commandments (capitals for emphasis!)

These are in no particular order. A few of these are done in jest. It's good to joke around once in a while :) Also, assume these are in addition to those few useful religious commandments.

Psht, we can top that.

Thou shalt not discriminate against anyone based upon their sexual orientation, race, age, etc.

Thou shalt not work towards limiting the happiness of those whose actions you disagree with, if those actions are not harmful to others.

Thou shalt treat others as you wish to be treated, unless thoust art a masochist. If so, see the next command.

Thou shalt not treat others as you wish to be treated, if thoust art a masochist. Do the opposite.

Thou shalt not abuse neglect, or otherwise treat poorly non human animals. Do not adopt a pet if you cannot and will not provide a loving, stable, fulfilling environment for them.

Thou shalt not have numerous amounts of children for whom thoust cannot provide, financially, emotionally, or otherwise.

Thou shalt not neglect to consider societal and environmental impacts when contemplating having children.

Thou shalt not knowingly exploit others for financial or other gains.

Thou shalt enter into a marriage purely for monetary or other reasons not involving love if you so desire, but be honest about it. Nobody believes that you married a rich 89 year old for love, if you're a gorgeous 25 year old.

Thou shalt be intellectually honest in all of your intellectual endeavors, no matter how uncomfortable this maybe make you.

Thou shalt seek to question and challenge thy beliefs, including those theistic in nature.

Thou shalt not act contrary to these or any other moral or ethical teachings in the name of business.

Thou shalt not solicit those protected by the do not call list.

Thou shalt strive towards not teaching children known falsehoods, especially when the truth may lead to more beneficial outcomes, or lessened negative ones.

Thou shalt not murder another, with the exception of a self defense situation in which all other options are unfeasible.

Thou shalt not watch Fox News.

Thou shalt not seek to enforce your religious or cultural heritage upon others. Sharing it is welcomed, attempting to enforce it is not.

Thou shalt not proselytize to someone who has requested the cessation of such activities.

Thou shalt not use fear as a basis for said proselytization.

Thou shalt respect secularism as the only reasonable way to ensure as healthy a society as possible, unless every single member of said society belongs to the same religion and shares the exact same beliefs.

Thou shalt not deny your children medical care in favour of prayer or religious healing practices. Empirically validated treatments are the only recommended course of action for anyone, especially a dependant child.

Thou shalt watch The Young Turks, even if thoust doth not reside in the United States of America. 

Thou shalt not assume that this list is complete.

Thou shalt work towards effecting change in this very list, when both the means, and the societal imperative to do so, arise. If the state of societal health and individual liberty necessitates a change,

Thou shalt make that change!!!!

That's it for the new commandments, at least for now. If you have any of your own to add, please feel free to add some in the comment section. Also, feel free to criticize my choices. Keep in mind, this list was made up on the spot, and it is very liable to be revised (in fact, THAT'S ENCOURAGED!).

In all seriousness though, if you removed the ones done in jest, I'd say I'm on to something here, although I would certainly make some changes and some additions after some more thoughtful deliberation. And with the input of others, which can only serve to make this much stronger.