I don't think a vampire can attack a person...

[williamtheday]

If the person doesn't belive in vampires. This applies only to supernatural vampires, not those created scientifically. I base this on the "new rules" pop culture has: crosses and other religious symbols won't work against (supernatural) vampires if the person weilding symbol does not believe sincerely in it. So it seems logical to me this reasoning would work both ways. What do you think?

[SquirrelMan]

I guess there are more layers to that.

Do you believe the attacker exists, but they are not a vampirex?

Then they can probably hit you, strangle you, poison you with moldy cheeze-wiz.

But if you don't believe they exist at all, it gets really existential. I think then they can only hurt you by calling in a hitperson who is not a vampirex.

[KOSLOX]

What if they attacked a person near you, which you witnessed, and exhibited all of the traits of vampirism during the attack.

Basically there would be a pretty short span of nonbelief to general acceptance if Vampires were real, which would negate the nonbelief aspect.

[Surf]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, I guess? What if me and a potna are leaving a house party or whatever and I rocks with the whole lore and he does on the level but really thinks I'm crazy. Vampire shows up, I'm crucifixed up, I got your back woop, woop, Vampire gets a blow on me but not before he splits my man's head with a 2X4, or whatever. I take the vampire out but my friend is never right again, I mean never, never. Quality of life gone never. We all would like to believe we'd become half John McClane other half Van Helsing but prolly not. I agree, it's levels to it.

[williamtheday]

Existential is a good way to describe my arguement. Could it be that vampires can only attack certain people, like The Wolfman can only kill those who have the sign of the pentagram on them?

[Phoenixx9]

If the person doesn't belive in vampires. This applies only to supernatural vampires, not those created scientifically. I base this on the "new rules" pop culture has: crosses and other religious symbols won't work against (supernatural) vampires if the person weilding symbol does not believe sincerely in it. So it seems logical to me this reasoning would work both ways. What do you think?

Hmmn. Not sure it works this way. Very religious people do have evil and bad things happen to them. Sometimes these people are specifically attacked because they are good souls.

However, in the mythic reality of comics, it would be interesting if Vampyres and such could not attack good/religious or holy people.

[Scott Taylor]

There is precedent - vampires can't enter a house without first being invited (Fright Night, Lost Boys). So a jump from that could be that a vampire couldn't attack a person unless that person thought they could be attacked by a vampire (inviting attack). If you view belief as a kind of invitation.

The character of Renfield comes to mind.

Also some religions teach that one cannot become possessed by a demon, for instance, unless one believes in them and is engaging in evil, demonic activities.

[numberthirty]

I think that you might want to see a Christopher Walken film called The Addiction.

[DrNewGod]

...who eats garlic every day.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

I go to Salem's Lot, where the priest lost his ability to hold the vampire at bay the instant his faith waivered. Suggests to me that if you believe hard enough that they're powerless, vampires are powerless.

Of course that ignores Jim Butcher's rules, but whatever

[LobsterJohnson]

Not true, I don't believe in vampires but they keep attacking me anyway.