Irkis In reply to Mishkatron [2016-07-16 08:04:40 +0000 UTC]

Hi!
Thank you so much for your nice comment and faves  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Mishkatron In reply to Irkis [2016-07-16 11:05:52 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome! C:

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to Xhodocto385 [2016-01-08 22:42:35 +0000 UTC]

Why don't you respond to me, but go and whine about how bad I am to your supporters instead? Thank you for the advertising, but I think it's kinda childish. You might have at least said "sorry" for attacking me.

OK, I tell you about my views on all this "sacred life" thing)  I don't entirely agree with the ideology you mentioned. It has its logic, but for me things are slightly different.
a) Any living organism, including a human being, is a machine. A very sophisticated one, indeed, but a machine nonetheless. If a human mind will create an intelligent artificial lifeform (bodyless AI, robot, whatever), it would be an equal person. There is no reason for a carbon lifeform, a carbon machine to declare its superiority above other machines.
b) If we define "sacred" as “worthy of religious worship”, “holy”, “related to religion”, meaning that life is sort of supernatural, was created by god and all the stuff like this, then no, life is not sacred. It appeared because of abiogenesis and took its current form through 4 milliards of years of biological evolution. You better don’t argue that. I can assure you that I have all the necessary evidence. I have a deep interest in biology. You can find how I disputed about GMO in the comments section below one of my journals for example.
BUT. According to scientific information we have nowadays, life seems to be a rare phenomenon. It wouldn’t be too wrong to assume that intelligent life is even more rare. That is what makes it precious! Its ability to think, to reflect, to process abstract ideas combined with its fewness, with the amount of time it takes for it to evolve and all the obstacles preventing it from doing so. Universe is a dangerous place. It is not very suitable for life. Actually, it tends to kill it )
c) I fully agree with the statement that an intelligent lifeform should evolve, should strive to make itself better. I am a transhumanist, if you haven’t noticed yet. I don’t believe in any god that religions created by ancient men offer me. I have no reason to be sure that the universe was created and that it has some purpose. But I have a dream, an idealistic thought that an intelligent lifeform can evolve into a godlike being. Maybe there are such beings out there. Who knows? But they are definitely not the gods men made up stories about. It seems that they’ve never visited our place X)
d) Oh, and I have a different view on violence. It would be too long to explain.I  raised this topic in that pro-GMO conversation though.
I wanted to make my own stamp on this theme, but then economic crisis occurred and I thought that it would be too costly to prolong my premium membership. It is not that useful to spend so much money on it. So I let it stay as it is.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

sin-and-love In reply to Irkis [2016-01-09 00:20:39 +0000 UTC]

sin-and-love.deviantart.com/jo…


"Any living organism, including a human being, is a machine. A very sophisticated one, indeed, but a machine nonetheless. If a human mind will create an intelligent artificial lifeform (bodyless AI, robot, whatever), it would be an equal person. There is no reason for a carbon lifeform, a carbon machine to declare its superiority above other machines."  Then we won't claim superiority over AIs.  but that doesn't mean that we aren't alive or anything.


 "I don’t believe in any god that religions created by ancient men offer me."  I reall don't understand why you atheists use the ancientness of religion as an argument against it.  I mean, the idea that the moon goes around the earth is as ancient as an idea gets!


" I have no reason to be sure that the universe was created and that it has some purpose. But I have a dream, an idealistic thought that an intelligent lifeform can evolve into a godlike being." hahahahahah.  read this: sin-and-love.deviantart.com/jo…



I apologize if I came across as hostile here, I actually try my best to be friendly to everyone.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Irkis In reply to sin-and-love [2016-01-09 11:36:01 +0000 UTC]

I wonder why you religious people feel such an uncontrollable urge to "shove your beliefs down other people’s throats with the means of aggressive propaganda” as I said in one of my previous messages? I wouldn’t have told you or your friend a single word, if only you had’t tried to preach your ideas to me. I have better things to do in my life. Haven’t you?

“Laws of nature” is a human-made concept. It is a metaphor. They’re not like the legal laws created by our civilization. This analogy is out of place here. “Natural laws” are chains of causes and effects discovered by us so we can consider them during our activities.

What is a miracle? It can be defined as:

    a)      А very unlikely, but not supernatural event. This kind of “miracles” really exists.

    b)      An event that “breaks” laws of nature. C.S Lewis states that such events are beyond the comprehension of science, because they’re a result of an interference from somewhere outside of the nature.

Excuse me. BUT.

Firstly. If a hypothetical “outside force” affects the state of the matter inside of our Universe, it instantly becomes an “inside force” Which makes its activity open to detection and research.

No such events were spotted by modern developed science and reported in scientific journals. There are even foundations that offer a bunch of money to people who will be able to demonstrate “a miracle” during a proper scientific experiment. James Randi foundation, for example. Guess what? No one got that money!

In the end, it is irrational to prove an absence of something. The philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims. But remember that extraordinary claims require an extraordinary proof.

Secondly. Who said that this “outside space” where “interference” came from is not a part of nature, just some higher aspect of it? Or what if it is some another universe with its own physical constants and its own cause-and-effect chains which can be studied? We just don’t know yet. It is so arrogant of religion to declare that it possesses “the absolute truth” when in fact it knows nothing.

Btw, I’ve read the series of books about Narnia when I was 13 or 14. I found them quite boring, they’re a direct plagiarism of the Bible. I liked the kitty though. I have a soft spot for kitties. Anyway, Tolkien showed more creativity in his interpretation of Christianity.

Frankly speaking, I am not fond of fantasy books at all, I love sci-fi. My favorite author is Stanislaw Lem.

“Then we won't claim superiority over AIs.  but that doesn't mean that we aren't alive or anything.”

We better won’t. I am concerned that it won’t end well.

Where did I stated that we are not alive? By the way, there is no unarguable scientific definition of life. Is a virus alive, for example? Was proto-lifeforms, our ancestors, alive?

We’ve only encountered one type of life on one single little planet. What life is? We can’t tell it for sure by now. It may turn out that an AI will be as alive as we are.

“I reall don't understand why you atheists use the ancientness of religion as an argument against it.  I mean, the idea that the moon goes around the earth is as ancient as an idea gets!”

I really don’t understand why believers can’t learn the laws of rational thinking and argumentation! Analogy is not a proof.

The idea of the moon going around the Earth is obvious and based on what people seen in the sky with their own eyes. But “obvious” doesn’t always equal “right”. Sometimes our imperfect senses and minds play tricks on us. You should also remember that the Sun was also considered to be revolving around the Earth. And stars. And whole of the Universe. And the Earth was thought to be flat in those days. These ideas are reflected in the Bible too. It was written by people who lived in societies who were unaware that the Earth is a more-or-less spherical object, which orbits the Sun. So this ignorance is reflected in their writings.

For example: Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth…"

Surprisingly, modern Christians tend to ignore such things or try hard not to take them literally. That’s kinda funny) If it is a “god’s word” shouldn’t it be perfect from the first page to the last?

The ancient Jewish tribes, who created the primary sources of all the modern Abrahamic religions, were neighbored by Egyptians and Babylonians. So, they faced two flat-Earth cosmologies. Biblical cosmology and mythology is largely adopted from the the Babylonian, something could be borrowed from ancient Egyptian myths. For example, the myth about the Great Flood was a part of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, created 1,000 years before the Bible.

The myth almost fully resembles the biblical version, except for the names of characters and the number of existing gods. Let me remind you that the kingdom of Babylon was in the area between the Tigris and Euphrates, which are among the most full-flowing rivers of the Earth. Floods surely were not a rarity there, one of them, the most destructive, may have become a prototype of the Great Flood.

There wasn’t any real “Great Flood”, of course. There isn’t enough water on Earth for that.

Why should I rely on books, which were created by societies with inferior scientific knowledge, inferior morals, inferior legal system, inferior *insert anything you can think of*?

“hahahahahah.  read this:”

“Hahaha”, really. So much words, so little sense. Is referring to the authority of C.S Lewis the only thing you’re able of doing?  Remember that it is a faulty way of argumentation. Don’t you have your own thoughts?

So, what is the purpose of the Universe? Christianity claims that the ultimate goal of creating the universe was the creation of the human beings. Excuse me, but why this system has such an awfully low efficiency? Even if in the place of "humans" we put "life", meaning by this all the Earth’s biosphere, all the hypothetical extraterrestrials and so on, there would be no significant changes. God is such a bad engineer that “it” creates a nuclear reactor, which, with all its enormous size, is able only of lighting a single light bulb? Not to mention that 99.9999% of the Universe is deadly for us.

Hence, there is three possible conclusions:

A) Yes, God is a looser.

B) We are just one minor by-product of the universe. We are not important, and no one needs us. Universe serves its goals, which are unknown to us. For example, it is a supercomputer. Or a toaster. Or a lampshade. Whatever.

B) There is no God. The universe was formed due to natural processes.

According to the ideas of the religious people, there must be a god who created everything. Let's start with the most plain and simple: dear believers, why do you think that the character from your book was the Creator? How about, for example, a race of ancient immortal beings with unimaginable intelligence and technology, who are creating new universes as creative projects or scientific experiments? We may live in a simulation ran on some Universal Supercomputer. The options are, in fact, infinite, starting with a variety of cosmogonic legends of the peoples of the world and ending with science fiction concepts. Your version is far away from the most believable. Moreover, it is irrational to take something for granted without proof. Until we have proof, we are only able of fantasying and hypothesizing.

The undeniable existence of god is in most cases proved by religious people by mentioning the complex organization of life and the universe. But there is a contradiction. Since god is omnipotent and omniscient, “it” must be a very multi-structured object, in comparison with which all the known universe is just a drop in the sea. If the universe, like a complex object, must be created, then who in this case created the god? No one? It does not need a creator because it has always existed? And why in this case anything else needs a creator? What about the hypothesis of a pulsating universe, for example? After all, there are many excellent scientific hypotheses, leaving the idea of ​​the Creator without attention.

The Universe at the dawn of its existence was a singularity - an object of the quantum scale. It is reasonable to assume that it obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics. These laws are very difficult to realize and understand for the inhabitants of the macrocosm, such as we are. Our "common sense" is completely useless in the world of elementary particles, which simply appear out of nowhere, exist in two places at the same time and travel in time and space through the wormholes. For this very reason believers viewing the universe as an ordinary object of macrocosm can only cause confusion.

Now I want to pay some extra attention to the excerpt from a C.S. Lewis book you linked in the beginning. It mentions the Almagest.

"Almagest" contains a detailed description of the geocentric system of the world, according to which the Earth is at rest in the center of the Universe, and all heavenly bodies revolve around it. A tiny Earth wrapped in a sphere on which stars are placed is NO MATCH to modern understanding of the Universe. It is huge. Hella HUGE. And we are nowhere near its center. All these facts contradict with traditional religious view on reality a lot. On par with many others.

Conclusion: the only use I made of your visit is practicing my written English. Thank you for that.

Now, please, GO AWAY. I have no intention to play the role of the main characters of Isaac Azimov’s story about people stuck on a space station with stubborn religious robots. It is called “Reason”. Read it.

You have already interfered with me finishing my projects, including essays and artworks. I do not want to waste more of my time on you. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sin-and-love In reply to Irkis [2016-01-10 02:11:33 +0000 UTC]

"I wonder why you religious people feel such an uncontrollable urge to 'shove your beliefs down other people’s throats with the means of aggressive propaganda' as I said in one of my previous messages? I wouldn’t have told you or your friend a single word, if only you had’t tried to preach your ideas to me. I have better things to do in my life. Haven’t you?"
please read this: sin-and-love.deviantart.com/jo…

"“Laws of nature” is a human-made concept. It is a metaphor. They’re not like the legal laws created by our civilization. This analogy is out of place here. “Natural laws” are chains of causes and effects discovered by us so we can consider them during our activities."  
I don't think you understand what they're talking about.  this conversation took place in England somewhere around WW2.  When they refer to "the laws of nature,"  they're talking about stuff like the laws of physics, and the laws of other sciences as well.  I think we can both agree that those laws are not manmade concepts.

 " a)      А very unlikely, but not supernatural event. These kind of “miracles” really exists."  those aren't miracles.  when people say call things like that miracles, they are speaking metaphorically.  no different from someone calling a fat guy a "human planet."

"Firstly. If a hypothetical “outside force” affects the state of the matter inside of our Universe, it instantly becomes an “inside force”  Which makes its activity open to detection and research."  I guess you are right in one sense. however, Have you ever played a sims game?  would you say that you are open to detection and research by the characters in the game? [they would probably think that the things you did to their world just happened on their own, like how fish in a pond in a park probably think that the surface of their world (the pond) randomly puts forth food flakes from time to time]. would you say that Bill Gates is open to detection and research by algorithms in Microsoft programs?  would you say that Stephen King is open to detection and research by the characters in his Novels?  of course not.  relative to the things they create, these are all outside forces, and they all interact with the systems they create without becoming parts of the systems themselves, and therefore do not become "inside forces".


"No such events were spotted by modern developed science and reported in scientific journals. There are even foundations that offer a bunch of money to people who will be able to demonstrate 'a miracle' during a proper scientific experiment. James Randi foundation, for example. Guess what? No one got that money!"  I fail to see how this proves anything.


"In the end, it is irrational to prove an absence of something. The philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims. But remember that extraordinary claims require an extraordinary proof."  I agree completely.  I can give you that extraordinary proof.  Go read some of the books that I quote in my journal.  You should also read the Colton Burpo story.

"Secondly. Who said that this “outside space” where “interference” came from is not a part of nature, just some higher aspect of it? Or what if it is some another universe with its own physical constants and its own cause-and-effect chains which can be studied? We just don’t know yet. It is so arrogant of religion to declare that it possesses 'the absolute truth' when in fact it knows nothing." You must understand that when Lewis reffers to "nature," he is talking about our nature, that is, our universe.  also, Christianity does not claim to know everything, just the more important metaphysical things.  we declare to know these things because we know them on authority.  now before you pull the "appeal to authortiy fallacy"  on me, read this: www.deviantart.com/browse/all/…


"Btw, I’ve read the series of books about Narnia when I was 13 or 14. I found them quite boring, they’re a direct plagiarism of the Bible. I liked the kitty though. I have a soft spot for kitties. Anyway, Tolkien showed more creativity in his interpretation of Christianity."  The Narnia books were never meant to argue for anything any more than Harry Potter is. Also, you clearly don't know what plagarism is. www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1X-Nu…  Narnia is an allegory of the Bible. Narnia is no more a plagarism of the Bible than the story "flatland" is a plagarism of the science of the fourth dimension.

"Frankly speaking, I am not fond of fantasy books at all, I love sci-fi. My favorite author is Stanislaw Lem."  Only roughly half of Lewis' books were fantasy.  none of the ones I quote in my Journal are any more fantasy than Darwin's The Origin of Species or Dawkins' The God Delusion.


"We better won’t. I am concerned that it won’t end well." At least we can agree on one thing.  However, I think that the result is likely to look more like an AI civil rights movement than a violent revolution.


"Where did I stated that we are not alive? By the way, there is no unarguable scientific definition of life. Is a virus alive, for example? Was proto-lifeforms, our ancestors, alive?"  Sorry, it sounded like you were saying that we're not alive.

"We’ve only encountered one type of life on one single little planet. What life is? We can’t tell it for sure by now. It may turn out that an AI will be as alive as we are." I make the distinction between two kinds of life.  Biological life, and metaphysical life (the possession of a mind and soul).  a unicellular microbe has the one kind, a true AI would have the other kind, and a human has both.

"I really don’t understand why believers can’t learn the laws of rational thinking and argumentation! Analogy is not a proof.The idea of the moon going around the Earth is obvious and based on what people seen in the sky with their own eyes. But “obvious” doesn’t always equal “right”. Sometimes our imperfect senses and minds play tricks on us. You should also remember that the Sun was also considered to be revolving around the Earth. And stars. And whole of the Universe. And the Earth was thought to be flat in those days. These ideas are reflected in the Bible too. It was written by people who lived in societies who were unaware that the Earth is a more-or-less spherical object, which orbits the Sun. So this ignorance is reflected in their writings." I, being a non-fundamentalist, understand these rules fine.  You, however, were committing the chronological snobbery fallacy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronolo…  The Biblical peoples' knowledge of astronomy would only be relevant if the Bible were actually a book on astronomy.  You atheists dismissing the metaphysical claims of the Bible because it's authors thought the earth was flat makes as much sense as a geography teacher dismissing all the biological claims of a world-renown biologist because said biologist thought Africa was all one country.  besides, if we should dismiss the Hebrew religion because of their ignorance of astronomy, does that mean we should embrace the Mayan religion because of their expertise in astronomy?



"For example: Revelation 7:1 'And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth…'  So?  the phrase "four corners of the Earth" was simply a metaphor for the four cardinal points on a compass.  Their use of that phrase no more means that they thought the Earth actually had corners than our use of the phrase "sunrise" means we think the sun actually rises.

"Surprisingly, modern Christians tend to ignore such things or try hard not to take them literally. That’s kinda funny) If it is a “god’s word” shouldn’t it be perfect from the first page to the last?"  Before you judge whether a book is "perfect" or not, you need to understand what it's trying to do and what it's purpose is.  Carl Sagan's The Cosmos is meant to teach astronomy.  It teaches astronomy very well.  Therefore, it is a good book despite the fact that in it the author claims that the Library of Alexandria was burnt down by Christians (it was actually burnt down by an invading army).


"The ancient Jewish tribes, who created the primary sources of all the modern Abrahamic religions, were neighbored by Egyptians and Babylonians. So, they faced two flat-Earth cosmologies. Biblical cosmology and mythology is largely adopted from the the Babylonian, something could be borrowed from ancient Egyptian myths. For example, the myth about the Great Flood was a part of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, created 1,000 years before the Bible." First off, read this:sin-and-love.deviantart.com/jo… Second, hundreds of cultures from around the world have their own flood stories, and few of these cultures even knew any of the others existed (note that this is the only reason I am willing to look at the flood story as anything more than a parable).

"There wasn’t any real “Great Flood”, of course. There aren’t enough water on Earth for that."  That is very true.  However, it is worth noting that when a culture that ancient said "worldwide," they meant all the world they knew about, in this case being the land around the Mediterranean sea  (which, as the guy who discovered the titanic demonstrated, did have a "global" flood in its past).


"Why should I rely on books, which were created by societies with inferior scientific knowledge, inferior morals, inferior legal system, inferior *insert anything you can think of*?" short answer: because you're not looking at their book the right way. Long answer: sin-and-love.deviantart.com/jo…

"'Hahaha', really. So much words, so little sense. Is referring to the authority of C.S Lewis the only thing you’re able of doing?  Remember that it is a faulty way of argumentation. Don’t you have your own thoughts?" Why should I go through the trouble of trying to come up with my own argument when a much better one has already been given me? that'd be like insisting on doing advanced calculus in your head even when the professor has permitted and handed out calculators. an argument's an argument; why does it matter whether or not I'm the one who came up with it?  Imagine a creationist who kept asking you questions on evolution that you personally couldn't answer. However, you own a book by Richard Dawkins that gives terrific answers to every single one of the creationists arguments. Would you use Dawkins' arguments, or try to come up with your own?

"So, what is the purpose of the Universe? Christianity claims that the ultimate goal of creating the universe was the creation of the human beings. Excuse me, but why this system has such an awfully low efficiency? Even if in the place of "humans" we put "life", meaning by this all the Earth’s biosphere, all the hypothetical extraterrestrials and so on, there would be no significant changes. God is such a bad engineer that “it” creates a nuclear reactor, which, with all its enormous size, is able only of lighting a single light bulb? Not to mention that 99.9999% of the Universe is deadly for us." Wrong.  Christianity says that the ultimate goal of crating the univers was the creation of sapient minds capable of returning God's love. I seriously doubt God gives a rat's ass about the shape of the bodies those minds might inhabit. sin-and-love.deviantart.com/jo…

"According to the ideas of the religious people, there must be a god who created everything. Let's start with the most plain and simple: dear believers, why do you think that the character from your book was the Creator? How about, for example, a race of ancient immortal beings with unimaginable intelligence and technology, who are creating new universes as creative projects or scientific experiments? We may live in a simulation ran on some Universal Supercomputer. The options are, in fact, infinite, starting with a variety of cosmogonic legends of the peoples of the world and ending with science fiction concepts. Your version is far away from the most believable. Moreover, it is irrational to take something for granted without proof. Until we have proof, we are only able of fantasying and hypothesizing."  We're so certain that our idea is the correct one because that's what the being itself said was the case. sin-and-love.deviantart.com/jo…

"The undeniable existence of god is in most cases proved by religious people by mentioning the complex organization of life and the universe. But there is a contradiction. Since god is omnipotent and omniscient, “it” must be a very multi-structured object, in comparison with which all the known universe is just a drop in the sea. If the universe, like a complex object, must be created, then who in this case created the god? No one? It does not need a creator because it has always existed? And why in this case anything else needs a creator? What about the hypothesis of a pulsating universe, for example? After all, there are many excellent scientific hypotheses, leaving the idea of ​​the Creator without attention."  You're presuming that since grand and potent things native to our  reality are multi-structured, then grand and potent things from all realities must be multistructured.  God, however, is the very foundation of reality itself. asking whether even something from another reality (let alone asking it of the outside originator of all realities) is "multistructured" or not would probably be like asking whether the color yellow is square or round, or how many hours there are in a mile. We'd have a better chance of trying to visualize a four-dimensional object in it's true form than trying to comprehend God's other realities. an God itself is infintley more uncomprehensible than even those.  So who's to say that God's nature has to follow our reality's logic?  Or put it another way: God exists outside of time.  Therfore, for God to have an origin would necessitate a point in time where God originated.

"The Universe at the dawn of its existence was a singularity - an object of the quantum scale. It is reasonable to assume that it obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics. These laws are very difficult to realize and understand for the inhabitants of the macrocosm, such as we are. Our "common sense" is completely useless in the world of elementary particles, which simply appear out of nowhere, exist in two places at the same time and travel in time and space through the wormholes. For this very reason believers viewing the universe as an ordinary object of macrocosm can only cause confusion."  I fail to see how this refutes anything I've said. besides, sin-and-love.deviantart.com/jo…

""Almagest" contains a detailed description of the geocentric system of the world, according to which the Earth is at rest in the center of the Universe, and all heavenly bodies revolve around it. A tiny Earth wrapped in a sphere on which stars are placed is NO MATCH to modern understanding of the Universe. It is huge. Hella HUGE. And we are nowhere near its center. All these facts contradict with traditional religious view on reality a lot. On par with many others."  No they don't. The teachings of Christianity have nothing to do with astronomy at all. If I had to draw conclusions about astronomy from the Bible, I'd think that God was the center of the universe.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Irkis In reply to sin-and-love [2016-01-10 17:49:26 +0000 UTC]

The “support team” is back. Your friend apologized and left me alone, but you seem to have no sense of politeness and no respect for other people’s requests. According to the link: I didn’t read the text except the remark you made at the end.  I have no time for that. You could have retold any of the texts you link me to with your own words. In order to make your arguments shorter and the main idea clear. Then I wouldn’t have lost my time on reading the linked texts, translating them (I am not a native speaker, if you haven’t noticed) and finding out what did you want to tell me with that.

But, as I already said, you don’t care about other people’s needs. You only want to convince them that you’re right and to make your religion seem better, so that it will gain new followers. All the “finding the truth” thing is just an excuse. You already know “what the truth is” and you are absolutely sure about it. You said that latter in your message.

If you remove the links to your favorite C.S. Lewis, your argumentation will lose the power of his authority. That’s why you’re not doing it.

You have a link to a list of fallacies there Cute. It seems that it haven’t helped you at all.

Do you seriously think that I wouldn’t be able to find any information about religion without your help? Dude, I visited tens and thousands of Christian, Islamic and other kinds of websites, forums and online groups.  In “read only” mode. Because I know that it is nearly impossible for one single person to change your mind. Therefore, I don’t waste my time. But I’m interested in what you think. How dangerous your thoughts are? How modern society can deal with this danger?

“I don't think you understand what they're talking about.  this conversation took place in England somewhere around WW2.  When they refer to "the laws of nature,"  they're talking about stuff like the laws of physics, and the laws of other sciences as well.  I think we can both agree that those laws are not manmade concepts.”

I understood all of it perfectly well. But you didn’t understand me even a bit.

I don’t have a wide knowledge of English idioms and terms with metaphorical meaning. So, I will use a Russian one as an example. In Russia a ladybird is called “a god’s cow”. Does it make a ladybird “a cow”? Of course no!

Does the fact that the laws of physics are called “laws” necessarily lead us to a conclusion that someone established them? No. It is just a name people call the cause-and-effect chains within nature.

You may say “a-ha, you used an analogy as a proof”! Well, it is an example, not an analogy. Because in both cases we talk about human language. The same aspect of the language, to be precise. I wasn’t projecting principles on which one phenomenon work on an absolutely different one.

“those aren't miracles.  when people say call things like that miracles, they are speaking metaphorically.  no different from someone calling a fat guy a "human planet."”

We have no evidence that miracles can exist in any way, except this metaphorical one. Such use of this word exists in the language, which makes it a correct definition.

“I guess you are right in one sense. however, Have you ever played a sims game?  would you say that you are open to detection and research by the characters in the game? [they would probably think that the things you did to their world just happened on their own, like how fish in a pond in a park probably think that the surface of their world (the pond) randomly puts forth food flakes from time to time]. would you say that Bill Gates is open to detection and research by algorithms in Microsoft programs?  would you say that Stephen King is open to detection and research by the characters in his Novels?  of course not.  relative to the things they create, these are all outside forces, and they all interact with the systems they create without becoming parts of the systems themselves, and therefore do not become "inside forces".”

*HEAVY FACEPALM*

ANALOGY IS NOT A PROOF.

In addition, all the objects you mentioned do not possess nor mind, nor awareness, nor highly developed intelligence.

If fish had been an intelligent race (or even big brained mammals), they would have spotted the person bringing the food to them. If Sims characters had been strong AIs, they would have definitely observed some force manipulating their environment.

Furthermore, it is not necessary for two systems to completely merge in order to influence each other. The process and the consequences of such an interaction is not “supernatural”. They can be detected and studied.

“I fail to see how this proves anything.”

Our scientific equipment allows us to find dozens of tiny exoplanets, which are light years away from us, to see distant galaxies, to detect the cosmic microwave background radiation, the echo of the Big Bang, which occurred 14 milliards of years ago, to spot that the Universe is expanding and so on. We can sequence our genome and create a technology to alter it (CRISPR/Cas9), we can built a 26 km long hadron collider to prove the existence of an elementary particle. However, we can’t notice when laws of nature suddenly break down at some point of the observable Universe. WTF are you talking about?

There is also another funny fact for you: in modern world milliards of people have a camera with them. Even the insufficient data is being published on the internet, because all of these portable cameras are called “smartphones” and have a network connection. The majority of the internet users can see all this photos, videos and gifs.

Hence, no one ever filmed the sea as it parted; no one caught on his or her camera a talking plant. There are even no videos of bricks flying by themselves on youtube!

The only reported “miracles” are Jesus’s face appearing on toasts. These miracles are explained by the ability of the human brain to detect informational patterns everywhere. Even if they’re not really there.  The thing with faces on objects happens because you better be paranoid than careless. You better notice an inexistent face on the trunk of the tree than be ambushed by an enemy. It is an evolutionary adaptation.

Until you give me a decent proof, I won’t consider “miracles” as truth. That is your obligation, not mine.

“I agree completely.  I can give you that extraordinary proof.  Go read some of the books that I quote in my journal.  You should also read the Colton Burpo story.”

*Starts laughing hysterically*

Is THAT what you call EXTRAORDINARY PROOF?!

Subjective opinions of some men and a near-death experience of a boy, who is talking about “Jesus riding a rainbow-colored horse”?

I tell you what EXTRAORDINARY proof looks like. A supernatural phenomenon must be discovered and documented. With the use of photography, video recording, other sensors and scientific equipment. Then the data must be given to several research teams. The more of them, the better. A single person can make a mistake, but many people using the scientific method have a much lower chance of deluding themselves. They better be from different research facilities, different cities and even from different countries. We need to make sure that the teams are independent from each other and have different sources of  financing. This will make cheating difficult. If after an in-depth analysis of data the vast majority of scientists will come to a conclusion that a violation of the laws of nature really took place, we will know with a certain probability that such a thing really can happen.

But. This fact doesn’t show that Christianity is true. Or that any religion is true. It only shows us that a violation of laws of nature happened in a particular place and time. That’s all. What was the cause of it is a different question that requires further research. Maybe it was aliens. Or a law of nature we just don’t know about yet.

“You must understand that when Lewis reffers to "nature," he is talking about our nature, that is, our universe.” 

I understood what Lewis referred to. But you didn’t understand me again. Lewis had no idea what the space outside of our Universe is like. We still don’t have any idea about that. After all these years. He had no right to claim that science can be applied only to study the matter inside of our Universe. At some point in the future the species that we evolve into can actually “penetrate the walls” of this Universe and leave it. There is a thing  called the String Theory. According to it, there are milliards of different universes with various physical constants out there. What if an intelligent species visits and studies two of them? Ten? A million? All of them? And the space between them, if any is present in there?

How funny will it be if they find a god and study it too I suppose that they’ll need to become "gods" themselves first though.

Anyway, these all are just assumptions, plots for sci-fi novels, but not facts. No one knows the facts by now.

“also, Christianity does not claim to know everything, just the more important metaphysical things.  we declare to know these things because we know them on authority.  now before you pull the "appeal to authortiy fallacy"  on me, read this:”

The link is broken, so I do not need to read and translate all of your worthless excuses. Good.

Unfortunately for you, I have more respect for Positivist philosophy.

Metaphysical fantasies about “gods” and “primal sources of everything” have nothing to do with reality, are unfalsifiable and have no practical use.

I am concerned that even ethics and aesthetics, which always were an application area of metaphysics, can be rationalized and based on empirical data. Evolutional psychology and neurophysiology can provide us with some answers.

I understand that it is a shame to die without knowing what lies beyond the universe, because this puzzle is highly unlikely to be solved during an ordinary lifespan of a human. But it is not a reason to believe in fairy tales.

 Oh, and the last, but not the least: if authority is the only reason you think something is truthful, you are a fool. A complete one. Without any redemption.

A Bible is true, because it is written in the bible that it is true. Circle of argumentation. Perfect.

“The Narnia books were never meant to argue for anything any more than Harry Potter is. Also, you clearly don't know what plagarism is. Narnia is an allegory of the Bible. Narnia is no more a plagarism of the Bible than the story "flatland" is a plagarism of the science of the fourth dimension.”

I didn’t say that the books are arguing anything. I just pointed out that they’re badly written.

Of course they have some features of an allegory, but they also can be called plagiarized. It is called plagiarism when an author takes character types and a severe amount of significant plot elements from another book and calls the result his own. It is a legal plagiarism though, since all the authors of the original books died centuries ago.

I chose to use a negative term because I found the books uncreative, unoriginal, predictable and written with the only purpose of luring young children into Christianity. Tolkien’s imaginary universe is independent; it can exist separated from the ideology that it was inspired by. Lewis’s fantasy IS ideology from the first page until last.

Analogy again, yeah? We have “Science – Art” and “Work of fiction – Work of fiction” pairs.

“Only roughly half of Lewis' books were fantasy.  none of the ones I quote in my Journal are any more fantasy than Darwin's The Origin of Species or Dawkins' The God Delusion.”

One half is fantasy; in the other half he was trying to persuade people that a fantasy book written by other authors several thousands of years ago is The Truth. Yeah, resembles Dawkins so much. Very scientific.

“I make the distinction between two kinds of life.  Biological life, and metaphysical life (the possession of a mind and soul).  a unicellular microbe has the one kind, a true AI would have the other kind, and a human has both.”

I am sorry to upset you, but “mind” is a property of matter. We are nothing but our connectomes – a set of neural connections in the brain. The brain defines what we are. There is no empirical data that proves the existence of the soul. But there are loads of information from various fields of natural sciences that it is not needed to maintain any psychological function.

The development of the nervous system, from its simplest forms to complex brains of humans, was like a continuous gradient. Is there a soul in the nematode, whose nerve center is made of 302 neurons? If not… why not? At what stage of the evolution of life the soul actually appears? Do complex animals, like dolphins and chimpanzees, have some kind of underdeveloped souls? The fundamental principles of the functioning of the nervous system are rather universal. There are severe differences only in the simplest of the organisms. The human nervous system does not fundamentally differ from the one of a dog, a tiger of a primate (in fact, humans are primates). Even the mentioned nematodes have the same neurons and the same synapses. Yes, the human brain is very large and its cells are organized in sophisticated patterns, but it is not fundamentally different from my cat’s one. So, why is the soul a prerogative of the human beings, if “intelligence” and “consciousness” did not appear suddenly, but evolved gradually?

I like to ask uncomfortable questions. Yeah.

The brain remembers, the brain perceives, the brain thinks and makes decisions, the brain is of control of the body. Why anyone would need a soul then? Religion claims that it is responsible for the majority of higher mental functions. In addition, the soul stores memories of the person and their personality, so that he or she could be judged for his or her actions in the hereafter. Is the soul a device for processing and storing information, like the brain or the computer?

If we consider all its functions, it must be quite a complex device. What does it consist of? Religious people tend claim that it is immaterial, but it is nonsense. "immaterial object" - is a meaningless phrase, like "square circle" or "liquid brick". Matter is all that you can think of. Even energy is matter and vice versa Something "immaterial" is space. Empty place. Therefore, if we assume the existence of the soul, then it must consist of matter. Let us assume that it has not been studied yet, like the hypothetical “dark matter”, which cannot be observed due to the fact that it does not interact with any electromagnetic radiation. The difference is that the existence of the dark matter can be assumed due to the gravitational effects produced by it. There are no "effects" that suggest the existence of the soul.

If the soul influences human behavior, it must influence the brain. How does this happen? Why, despite the constant and close connection with the brain, the soul is not observable? Where are the "effects"?

And finally: why the brain is involved in processing information, if soul can take this function? Humans have a very large brain, which consumes a quarter of the energy received by the body. Why was this burden necessary, if almost all of the most important and energy-intensive functions of the brain are duplicated by soul? It would be much easier for God to put a small receiver-transmitter in our heads

I am usually faced with the objections that the brain actually takes only a small part in the functioning of the human personality. It is mostly a prerogative of the soul. However, it is not so.

The material nature of personality and consciousness can be proved by the fact that physical influence on the brain results in its functional changes.  You can "switch off" consciousness, change behavior, emotional state, memory and so on with the use of drugs, electrical and electromagnetic stimulation and surgery. Traumas, tumors and etc. have their consequences too.  Charles Whitman killed his family members and committed a massacre in a public place because of a brain tumor.

We are machines that can be triggered by the factors from the physical, material world we live in.

There is no reason to assume the existence of unobservable objects consisting of an unknown type of material, which duplicate the functions of the brain.

“I, being a non-fundamentalist, understand these rules fine.  You, however, were committing the chronological snobbery fallacy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronolo… “

Lewis? Again? Are you serious? Are there any other sources of information that you use?

Our views on all the existing matters evolved throughout the time. You know, we call it progress. Scientific progress, cultural progress, social progress, technological progress. I doubt that humans themselves were genetically inferior in the past, our  species and civilization are too young for a major biological evolution to occur. However, our ancestors didn’t have the knowledge we have now. That made their ways of thinking and behavior inferior to ours.

Well… We are material creatures, our mind is a function of the brain. The body is a life-support system for it. If humans are not treated well, if their primal needs are not satisfied, their minds cannot function at the peak of their effectiveness. Bad nourishment, stress and diseases lead to neurological traumas.

Progress gave us welfare and safety our ancestors never dreamed about.

Potentially (!), ancient people may have been as intelligent, rational and kind as many of us are. But they had no opportunity to fully develop their potential. Nowadays ordinary people from developed countries live better than kings and queens of the past. The poor monarchs couldn’t even take a shower! Not to mention the medical science of today and the internet

So, considering past “inferior” is completely OK. There are exceptions, but they’re extremely rare.

“The Biblical peoples' knowledge of astronomy would only be relevant if the Bible were actually a book on astronomy.  You atheists dismissing the metaphysical claims of the Bible because it's authors thought the earth was…does that mean we should embrace the Mayan religion because of their expertise in astronomy?”

So, you acknowledge the fact that the Bible was made up by men. And still believe that it is a "god’s book". Fascinating.

Astronomical incorrectness of the Bible is only one of the many examples why it is imperfect. It tells about a wide variety of fantasy stuff, which contradicts with the modern view on reality. The Old Testament is also a book full of atrocities: genocides, tortures, sexual slavery, misogyny, homophobia and other kinds of unpleasant things. All of them never got god’s disapproval. Many are performed by it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_… Watch it until the end
In the New Testament god impregnated (raped in some way) a 13-14 years old girl. It shows how much it respects bodily autonomy and reproductive rights of women. You may say that she agreed to that, but from the POV of the modern law, it was a rape. She was underage. And, well… she couldn’t say “no”, because she was talking to a f*cking GOD’S ANGEL. A consent given under the pressure of an authority is not considered a consent.

I’m just kidding) There is no evidence that any of these ever happened. It is a fiction, but fiction has power over minds. That’s why I always try to analyze it. And critisize.

We shouldn’t “embrace” any religion at all. They all are irrational.

“was simply a metaphor for the four cardinal points on a compass.”

It is only one quote among many. This phrase should be viewed in their context. On par with considering when the book was written.

“Before you judge whether a book is "perfect" or not, you need to understand what it's trying to do and what it's purpose is.  Carl Sagan's The Cosmos is meant to teach astronomy.  It teaches astronomy very well.  Therefore, it is a good book despite the fact that in it the author claims that the Library of Alexandria was burnt down by Christians (it was actually burnt down by an invading army).”

The purpose of religion is a complex question.

All civilizations possessed some ideas about gods. Therefore, religion must be the one of the by-products of the human brain functions. One of the cognitive errors it commits. It is not critical for survival, but it is not acceptable for objective, unbiased comprehension of the reality. Psychologists, sociologists and neuroscientists are currently trying to find out what exactly could bring the phenomenon of religion to life. One of the hypotheses is that the human brain is keen on inventing intelligent entities by its nature. This is a side effect of the mechanisms, which help us create "models" of other people’s consciousness. We are social creatures that live in large groups, so we have a vital need to understand others and empathize with them. The problems began when early humans started to use their empathy on inanimate objects and nature as a whole, thus giving them consciousness. They created deities. It is the easiest and the most natural way to explain the reality and the events taking place within it. In order to overcome it and see the world as it is, knowledge and rational thinking are required.

Ages passed and this error of the human mind was used to control masses and impose behavioral rules on people.  Religions encourage parochial altruism, they make people stand together and fight the outsiders. They are beneficial for the governments, which need power over people’s thoughts. That’s exactly what happened throughout the centuries and what takes place now in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. And in my country too. The most religious countries are usually the most backward.
Religion was useful before, it helped people to control themselves within the society. But now it is obsolete. There were psychological studies proving that children from religious families are more agressive and intolerant that the ones from the families of non-believers. Furthermore, religious people are doing good deeds because of the religious dogma and because they're concerned about their reputation among others, while non-believers are doing such things due to their inner sence of rightness and common sence. The behaviour of the believers is very worrying. Religious texts can be interpreted in any way. Moderate religion can exist only by ignoring the extremism within the holy texts. So, if someone finds it useful, religious people can be persuaded into doing any atrocities described by the "holy books".

Carl Sagan is the second favorite author of mine. He was a skeptic and a rationalist. He promoted these ideas in his books. “Cosmos” isn’t only about astronomy. It is about the power of the human mind. It encourages readers to use their brains and do it in a right way.

Oh, really? And whom those army consisted of? Atheists, maybe?

“Second, hundreds of cultures from around the world have their own flood stories, and few of these cultures even knew any of the others existed (note that this is the only reason I am willing to look at the flood story as anything more than a parable)”

Again Lewis… I am getting tired of this man.

Can you prove that these stories were sent by god? I guess that no. You can’t.

Maybe it is due to the fact that people usually live near water, because it is essential for them and for agriculture? Water has a tendency to cause floods My dad is an engineer, an expert on civil defense. When he worked for the Ministry of Emergency Situations, they had a lot of trouble with floods all over the region we live in. It happened every spring.

“That is very true.  However, it is worth noting that when a culture that ancient said "worldwide," they meant all the world they knew about, in this case being the land around the Mediterranean sea  (which, as the guy who discovered the titanic demonstrated, did have a "global" flood in its past)”

This needs fact checking. I have no time for it.

Anyway, I was trying to make a point that it was a natural flood.

“short answer: because you're not looking at their book the right way.”

I merely read the long answer. I understand perfectly well that modern Christians don’t see the god as a bearded man sitting on a cloud. My mother is a Russian Orthodox Christian. Imagine that I am actually talking to her sometimes *sarcasm*.

These modernized beliefs are still irrational. They’re not proved by anything.

I doubt that the authors of the Bible had the same view of religion in their minds when they were writing it. Actually, moderate religions of today are different from their sources. Society changed and people started to ignore some parts of the holy texts, the other parts got over-interpreted and viewed metaphorically.

People tend to see informational patterns even if they’re not actually present. Sometimes it results in hyper-analyzing of the works of art and fiction. A person sees meanings that wasn’t implied by the author. He or she just makes it all up. You definitely need to visit some popular fandom hashtags on Tumblr and see how much sophisticated meanings and philosophy fangirls and fanboys see in an average Hollywood blockbuster.

“Why should I go through the trouble of trying to come up with my own argument when a much better one has already been given me? that'd be like insisting on doing advanced calculus in your head even when the professor has permitted and handed out calculators. However, you own a book by Richard Dawkins that gives terrific answers to every single one of the creationists arguments. Would you use Dawkins' arguments, or try to come up with your own?”

It’s simple.

Me: “A single person can make a mistake, but many people using the scientific method have a much lower chance of deluding themselves.”

You can’t base your understanding of the Universe on Lewis’s thoughts. And the Bible. It is wrong.

When I write essays or have discussions, I am using dozens of sources of imformation. My last essay is not finished yet, but I’ve already used around thirty sources. Thirty(!) books and articles by different authors. I will never use the one and only book by Dawkins to prove something. Fortunately, I know what PubMed, Google Scholar and Springer are. And I have many books at home.

When you have the information from dozens of books and articles, compare it, analyze it, fit it in the structure of your knowledge and then create something on your own, you can possibly come up with something new, something that is yours and yours only. That’s how our civilization evolve. That's how your mind evolve.

“Wrong.  Christianity says that the ultimate goal of crating the univers was the creation of sapient minds capable of returnng God's love.”

That’s exactly what I said.
Me: “Even if in the place of "humans" we put "life", meaning by this all the Earth’s biosphere, all the hypothetical extraterrestrials and so on, there would be no significant changes.”

It is a modernized view of religion. There is no information about the aliens in the Bible. You are just making it up.

God’s love, you say? We CAN’T EXIST anywhere except a little rocky oasis in the goldilocks’ zone of a yellow star. If something goes wrong with it, we are f*cked.

Biologists assume that other biological lifeforms must be as fragile as we are.

1)There are tens of thousands of comets and asteroids in the Solar System that can crush into us (in the past they did, so it’s only a matter of time).

2) Our Solar System revolves around the center of the galaxy, it is also only a matter of time when it will come near a supernova. Or a black hole.

3) Our sun will burn all the living things on the Earth (if there will be anything left) in 5 milliards years.

4) Milky way is going to crush into the Andromeda.

Lets go down to Earth. Natural disasters taking thousands of lives, deadly viruses cooperating with our own endogenous retroviruses, cancer, inborn diseases the only description of which makes you shiver and so on and so far… Your god must be a sadistic jerk

  www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8F3E1…

The soundtrack is a Christian song. “My god created me” it says.

“You're presuming that since grand and potent things native to our  reality are multi-structured, then grand and potent things from all realities must be multistructured.  God, however, is the very foundation of reality itself.”

“foundation of reality itself”  You are sure  about that only because it was writen in the Bible. You have no actual proof.

Simple god, complex god, flat god, spherical god, green god, god wearing pink slippers… These are nothing but meaningless words. Until someone finds it, makes a photo of it and takes its blood sample we won’t be able to discuss what it is  

I was just playing mind games. But… A sentient power, which created everything. Just came out of nowhere? No waaaaay

“We'd have a better chance of trying to visualize a four-dimensional object in it's true form than trying to comprehend God's other realities.”

That’s exactly what theoretical physicists are doing. Among other things, they’re creating mathematical models of other universes. Hypothetical models. Such fields of science are abstract; it may take centuries until it will be possible to conduct an experiment.

Remember that our minds are still weak. We are still animals in many aspects. We will change, we will become better. More intelligent, more rational, more efficient.

“So who's to say that God's nature has to follow our reality's logic?  Or put it another way: God exists outside of time.  Therfore, for God to have an origin would necessitate a point in time where God originated”

Who said that the universe as a whole has to follow the logic that takes place inside of it? We know that time exists inside of our Universe. Is there any time outside of it? The Universe as a whole may exist in a timeless condition. Therefore, the Universe as a whole  do not need a point in time from where it originated. It is pulsating eternally in timeless space.

See?
These so called “arguments” can be used in any way. Because they’re not grounded in any empirical data.

“I fail to see how this refutes anything I've said.”

Too bad.

Me: “The Universe at the dawn of its existence was a singularity - AN OBJECT OF THE QUANTUM SCALE. It is reasonable to assume that it obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics.”

Me: “These laws are very difficult to realize and understand for the inhabitants of the macrocosm, such as we are.”

Me: “Our "common sense" is completely useless in the world of elementary particles, WHICH SIMPLY APPEAR OUT OF NOWHERE”

Universe may have just appeared. Without any "foundations".

“No they don't. The teachings of Christianity have nothing to do with astronomy at all.”

Oh? THE UNIVERSAL MIND impregnates AN UNDERAGE GIRL FROM A LITTLE INSIGNIFICANT PLANET. The girl gives birth to a child, which is partly the Universal Mind. The child grows up and starts preaching. When he gets killed for preaching. Then resurrects in some way, GOES TO THE UNIVERSAL MIND AND BECOMES ONE OF ITS THREE PARTS. Cool. No contradictions, really.

Even I know a better way to create a progressor.  At least my OC won't let puny humans kill herself.
Trying to rationalize the fact that the Son of God got killed by human beings, you Christians made a virtue out of weakness and helplessness.

“If I had to draw conclusions about astronomy from the Bible, I'd think that God was the center of the universe.”

Can you decide already whether god is outside of the universe or inside of it?

It's time ti finish this madness.
I saw you whining about how bad it is to ban people, but I don’t give a f*ck about that.

It seems that many users have blocked you for being an impolite, stubborn, intrusive and impudent person. It is their right. You are not entitled to demand people’s attention, to waste their time.

Me: “But, as I already said, you don’t care about other people’s needs. You only want to convince them that you’re right and to make your religion seem better, so that it will gain new followers. All the “finding the truth” thing is just an excuse. You already know “what the truth is” and you are absolutely sure about it.”

Now f*ck off. I am blocking you. I answered your message only for the sake of my visitors. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Irkis In reply to Irkis [2016-01-11 08:00:47 +0000 UTC]

Missed this one, the line I was referring to in the beggining:
"We're so certain that our idea is the correct one because that's what the being itself said was the case."
Universe itself was talking to you? I mean, personally?  Did you visit a psychiatrist after that?

If the fact that Christianity is the only true religion is so obvious, that even the world itself is talking about it, then why there are so many people who believe in other religions or don't believe in any at all?

From hundreds of different religions you was born and brought up in a family which believes in the Only True One.

From thousands of gods you worship the only One that truly exists.

How INCREDIBLY lucky you Christians are!

The funny fact is that people who have other kinds of faiths are using exactly the same line.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Irkis In reply to Irkis [2016-01-14 08:29:19 +0000 UTC]

Wow, people! After three days (s)he replied to this tiny message on an avpalternative GROUP PAGE (!). 
It seems that (s)he has got a major butthurt because of me. 

I know that you're reading this. Calm down, dude There is no need to spam on the group's comments section. 
I left this last message for my visitors, so that they can read the whole message, without the missing part I forgot to copy at first.
And no, none of your arguments are adequate. You did't even get the point I was trying to make through sarcastic jokes.
I have no intention to explain you why you're mistaken, because it is useless and time consuming. I have to do my final project for university on which my bachelor's degree depends on. I told you that several times, but you ignored it.
BTW, you're one of the most intrusive people I've met. Stop cyberstalking me. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to Irkis [2016-01-11 07:14:10 +0000 UTC]

*I am convinced that even ethics and aesthetics, which always were an application area of metaphysics, can be rationalized and based on empirical data. Evolutional psychology and neurophysiology can provide us with some answers. - fixed. Wrong word.
Sorry for the mistakes, I was typing this text in a hurry.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Xhodocto385 In reply to Irkis [2016-01-09 00:02:59 +0000 UTC]

ok, i understand it Irkis, i apologize for the childish "whining" even through i was not even rude to you, i just felt disturbed by the hive mind-like behavior of some internet antitheists, especially the ones from the circlejerk reddit page called "r/atheism" that i felt forced to post a comment here, and yup, everyone has it's own views of life, i'm a catholic but never a evil dangerous fundie.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Irkis In reply to Xhodocto385 [2016-01-09 11:45:02 +0000 UTC]

Writing such things to strangers is rude by default. never in my life I asked a random religious person to explain his or her beliefs, I never produced any unwanted critisizm. I only respond to people who are attacking me personaly and I also critisize ideas in general.

I've never been to any "reddit" website. What I have to do with it all?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to Xhodocto385 [2016-01-08 15:15:09 +0000 UTC]

Are you asking me to translate all the eighteen pages of text specially for you? Don't you think that it is quite... impertinent?
It is also impertinent to shamelessly challenge a stranger's worldview. Like I should make excuses for what I think because of people from the net whom I don't even know!
I do not believe that any of the existing (and ever existed) religions are true, because there is no scientific evidence that they're true. It's simple.
"Too materialistic"? I don't give a single f*ck about your opinion. And I shouldn't give any. I have beter, more reliable sources of information.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to BullTerrierKa [2015-12-20 15:32:22 +0000 UTC]

Спасибо

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to Oreleth [2015-01-04 12:05:19 +0000 UTC]

You are welcome! Thank you too :3 Glad you like it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to rulez-dmitriy [2014-06-27 05:25:14 +0000 UTC]

Пожалуйста

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to Dobromisl [2014-06-12 19:45:38 +0000 UTC]

Пожалуйста, прекрасная галерея, не могла не завотчить

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to CptWRogers [2014-05-31 11:50:20 +0000 UTC]

Nope

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

CptWRogers In reply to Irkis [2014-05-31 18:21:03 +0000 UTC]

Okay. ^^
Sorry to poke you. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to Variones [2014-03-06 15:35:51 +0000 UTC]

Тоже часто на автомате на английском пишу Х) Взаимно )

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to Variones [2014-03-06 15:34:08 +0000 UTC]

Пожалуйста =3

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to faliessDragon [2014-01-23 10:50:55 +0000 UTC]

irkis.deviantart.com/journal/T…

Вот оно) Времени не было, прости Т.Т

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to Natunya [2013-12-22 15:29:09 +0000 UTC]

Of course you can ^.^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Irkis In reply to CoffeeAndMarkers [2013-10-26 17:59:41 +0000 UTC]

You are welcome

👍: 0 ⏩: 0