Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (55197)	8/24/2002 9:11:23 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Excellent. All great movies. I think Ran is my favorite- and I do like Dreams- and Seven Samurai, and Yojimbo is wonderful- I never liked Throne of Blood either. I own quite a few Rohmer movies- Pauline is in my collection. I think it is charming. I am also very fond of Claire's Knee. I think that may be my favorite.

To: Neocon who wrote (55197)	8/24/2002 5:17:47 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I saw Possession! It was So SO SO good. My friend and I thought it was captivating. I think it is better than than the book- or at the very least, much clearer than the book. The books was very dense. The movie preserves most of what was wonderful about the book. The poetry is missing, but I did not think Ms. Byatt's poems to be as good as the poets of that period- so for me, the movie clears that up nicely (no slight to Ms Byatt- she did a great job on the poems, but they were basically part of the gimmick of the book, and not the equivalent (imo only) of real writers doing real work in the period). You might have a different opinion about them. Some of the people in my book group felt differently about the whole thing. Anyway, I think you will enjoy it very much.

To: Neocon who wrote (55197)	8/25/2002 3:48:53 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Neo, I saw a post of yours a few days ago. I don't know where it is now; but I will comment on it, nevertheless. The post was lamenting "atheism" as being "corrosive" of morality and thus something (surely implied) to be opposed. I find such a sentiment ludicrous or self serving or both. Religions reflect the morality of the leading hearts and minds of society at any given time. It reflects (at any rate) those whom have the power to dictate and lead...whether or not they have the wisdom. Before humans developed language...what characterised their moral center? When they grunted and feared the lightning...what made them both good and bad? Did the first people who suspected thunder was a natutal phenomena erode the "morals" of the people? Atheists do not belive in God. True enough. How does their non belief in the question of God corrode morals?? Firstly, if the question of God is an open one...then moral behaviour may well be realized in the recognition of this TRUTH. Secondly, how can belief in God ever equate to a moral consideration?? Thdere are thousands of Gods. Generally, all tribal religious alliances are self serving and portray an "enemy" or some other "prejudice". Let us consider yourself? Are you "moral"? How will you prove it? Are you an Australian Aborigine using magic rituals and involved with fetishes? Are you a Jew who belives that gentiles are inhuman "animals" created as cows? Are you a Christian who believes that blacks arwe EVIL? Which religious morality is "moral" and why?? Let me make it easier. An atheist does not believe in God. You belive this corrodes morals. So, back to you: How does your humanity change in accordance with your supernatural beliefs? How does supernatural obedience create "morality"?? Are the thousands of disparate aboriginals "moraL" merely because they believe that lightning is a God?? You are moral, so apparently you are a believer in God(unlike an atheist who corrodes moral values). So, if you could give you absolute and incontrovertible proof that you had no reward in heaven for being a decent person here...and you were not going to be tortured for"eternity" (ho, ho, ho!)_ for beng human--would you become a prick?? Are you being a decent person just because you belive in God?? If you stop believing in rewards from "God" will you stop eing moral? Will you cease to care? Does your compassion, empathy, and good judgement require free apples for you in an afterlife? How shallow would that be? Will you, Neocon, choose to be a brute if you come to believe that "God" may not exist? Is this what you meant by the "corrosive" effects of atheism on morality?? Some believers in God still believe in human sacrifice. Religions are always many years behind the most moral men and women in society (who eventually prevail due to intelligenmce--and the power which intelligence enables). So if you did not believe in God, Neocon...why would you choose to be less compassionate, empathic, sharing, or intelligent???