greenburg-eran-783-704993
Joined Sep 2013
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews3
greenburg-eran-783-704993's rating
If you love extreme visuals, they you will probably like this movie.
Otherwise, they will probably be irritating, seen as over-stimulating
If you agree that Hollywood will take a classic character and turn him black or female (e.g. Female spidermen and Octavious) instead of making new ones, then you will like this movie. If not, then you will dislike it.
If I speak the truth, vote this up.
As for me, there was some funny humor now and then, and okay storytelling, but did not enjoy it that much, nor particularly the attempt to DEI/feminist another classic movie, instead of new stories and new characters, but going against the mainstream is fighting against the tide. The entire multi-verse plot was wholly a way to create a structure for this as well.
Otherwise, they will probably be irritating, seen as over-stimulating
If you agree that Hollywood will take a classic character and turn him black or female (e.g. Female spidermen and Octavious) instead of making new ones, then you will like this movie. If not, then you will dislike it.
If I speak the truth, vote this up.
As for me, there was some funny humor now and then, and okay storytelling, but did not enjoy it that much, nor particularly the attempt to DEI/feminist another classic movie, instead of new stories and new characters, but going against the mainstream is fighting against the tide. The entire multi-verse plot was wholly a way to create a structure for this as well.
The world is full of successful, famous, and powerful people, but none hold a candle to this man whose life of saving 1000's of orphans is the essence of what it means to be truly great.
I have seen a lot of inspiring films in my life, but this may top them all.
I have seen a lot of inspiring films in my life, but this may top them all.
If the most worshiped being among the disbelievers is the self-aggrandizing, polite-yet-condescending Mr. Dawkins, then that is a belief system that is unappealing to me. I am not sure if that is the same as the religion of "Scientism" but they seem to be good friends in any case.
I am not sure why he questions others religion, but not his own personal belief system, because by so doing, he would be certain of nothing, other than a recognition of various material-based patterns--something a good robot/AI could do. It's almost like he has an objective to disprove religion, and then seeks for all the evidence that supports his belief. Very non-scientific in approach.
Also, I dont think Dawkins understands much outside of chemical/biological processes, because as a sociologist, I can tell you religion is extremely functional most of the time, not merely dysfunctional as he "believes", regardless of his tendency to resort to the availability heuristic (sounds like he watches news); but he seems to be oblivious to such functional values, showcasing his ignorance on the topic. Perhaps due to his biased circumstances/place-in-time/limited education on the topic-he's a victim of circumstance so I dont hold him accountable.
Mass violence is often, but not by any means exclusively, the result of power gone awry.
In fact, lets consider an alternative to religions being the cause of so much death. Democide has killed far more people than murders, traffic accidents, and even wars (unless you consider govt is behind most of those too), and interestingly, I found that most of the largest ones were due to non-theistic motivations, usually financial, and most reasons were considered "rational" by those whom employed it, even if it meant blaming "God."
IF we spent a lot more time questioning rationalism, we would probably find a lot of weaknesses, like how it changes so often, becomes a tool for abuse too often (e.g. Modernity and the Holocaust), and limited reasoning.
E.g. "Another commentor said We don't kill because we don't want the same to happen to us." but that leaves numerous questions like: why would someone else kill us? wouldnt it only matter then if we could get away with it? if there were no govt. laws or enforcement would this still be true (see chicago and south america)? why should I equate another human to myself as it is unnecessary and irrational? we will always the remain the victims of subjective values, so we will never find a single "truth" nor common objective in societal values, so why bother, unless you are trying to convert us?
I am not sure why he questions others religion, but not his own personal belief system, because by so doing, he would be certain of nothing, other than a recognition of various material-based patterns--something a good robot/AI could do. It's almost like he has an objective to disprove religion, and then seeks for all the evidence that supports his belief. Very non-scientific in approach.
Also, I dont think Dawkins understands much outside of chemical/biological processes, because as a sociologist, I can tell you religion is extremely functional most of the time, not merely dysfunctional as he "believes", regardless of his tendency to resort to the availability heuristic (sounds like he watches news); but he seems to be oblivious to such functional values, showcasing his ignorance on the topic. Perhaps due to his biased circumstances/place-in-time/limited education on the topic-he's a victim of circumstance so I dont hold him accountable.
Mass violence is often, but not by any means exclusively, the result of power gone awry.
In fact, lets consider an alternative to religions being the cause of so much death. Democide has killed far more people than murders, traffic accidents, and even wars (unless you consider govt is behind most of those too), and interestingly, I found that most of the largest ones were due to non-theistic motivations, usually financial, and most reasons were considered "rational" by those whom employed it, even if it meant blaming "God."
IF we spent a lot more time questioning rationalism, we would probably find a lot of weaknesses, like how it changes so often, becomes a tool for abuse too often (e.g. Modernity and the Holocaust), and limited reasoning.
E.g. "Another commentor said We don't kill because we don't want the same to happen to us." but that leaves numerous questions like: why would someone else kill us? wouldnt it only matter then if we could get away with it? if there were no govt. laws or enforcement would this still be true (see chicago and south america)? why should I equate another human to myself as it is unnecessary and irrational? we will always the remain the victims of subjective values, so we will never find a single "truth" nor common objective in societal values, so why bother, unless you are trying to convert us?