So you accept that your beast is just a kitten, and you just don’t agree with “scary” part? OK, I take that back, but you keep the “kitten”. Although, I thought you meant “hard-headed”. If I knew you meant talkative, I’d use “tweeting baby chick”.
You’re saying you didn’t mean people are a bunch of mass-produced object-like things (three at the cost of one)? Cos I totally look at them like that. Being heartless and loveless is a good thing in my religion. It’s a compliment.
Apparently, we do not agree; that’s a relief. I thought I agreed with my enemy. Phew! (This emoji is not “kiss”. It’s “phew” )
OK. Your wish is my command (That’s a sentence I never thought I’d say).
Nah, I’ve already got rid of you. You’re not dreaming; YOU ARE IN A COMA FOR PETE’S SAKE. Wake up! World doesn’t worth living.
Are you suggesting we are stupid, dear kind young lady!? ()
You gotta admit, this was too “high school”
Come on! We’re not 16 anymore . I need to be 10 years younger to get offended by this.
Well yes, that’s true. But I meant, we all have feelings and stuff, but they’re nothing more than what they actually are. It’s not something pure and magical.
Why do we have to give a deeper meaning to everything? Why are we trying to put a good spin on everything?
That was not what I said. I am quite skeptical. Nonetheless, I am impressed with your desire to examine things logically. The reason why I talked to you was because when people talk about things that aren’t to be easily proved in a rather certain way, it just gets on my nerves. Perhaps because I can’t be totally like them. I’m feeling very jealous!
Yep, I humbly admit (and I admit another thing too; I don’t know exactly what I’m admitting to ).
Not that there’s anything wrong with being 16 or 17, guys. Just saying.
The creation of the world is magical but:
Yes, I know what you mean. You’re too realistic. Giso is too dreamistic (that’s a made-up word), but if you could read between my lines, I’m saying “I’m a pessimistic believer” (even believing in science). Do you know what is funny though? Being realistic has such a charisma; it looks good, but the “reality” that is a part of the word is more like “flowing with the current”. They just follow the beliefs that others tell them they’re real. I admit that a part of me accepts that, but that’s the reality made of my own beliefs, not the facts. We actually don’t go after finding the reason’s behind all the facts. We just hear and believe they are true and correct, and we don’t find them ourselves. Do you think being a Vegan is more realistic or being a carnivore? You must choose between two completely opposite scientific facts. But a believer has the privilege of assurance and a make-believe certainty. And another thing is, considering something “real” and another “unreal” according to the words of a bunch of so-called “scientists”, is not such a strong argument. What I’m saying is we all are believers, believing in our own judgments (we cannot be realistic, cos we can’t prove, or disprove, everything). We are believers (all of us; some less, some more).
We just accept the proofs that we find worthy. We’re all alike.
All in all, we are NOT good judges. So F the world and all of its meanings.
It’s not character. It’s downright part of you. I meant it literally. They can represent sorrow, loss, joy or whatever lurks inside you. I don’t mean copying other people’s work but creating sth yourself. They can’t put that down to genes or body’s way of responding. And you wouldn’t say that because you know it’s right.
Yeah, I know. And, yes, you’re right. But that’s a whole other thing.
That’s what I’m talking about.
Worst-case scenario: Let’s say it’s all nothing but lies
That still doesn’t justify believing in things without any proof.
And I’m not saying that we have to believe in science or anything. It’s just when scientists say “Hey guys, we’ve found something.” they are actually talking about experiments and some things that exist They have proof. They know what they’re talking about. They give all the reasons. All we need to do (as non-believers) is to perform our own experiments, and then we can say “Hey, you were wrong!”.
And that’s the difference
Actually, it is. It’s the strongest possible for normal people who can’t perform their own experiments One side, has its own reasons, and the other one, has none. I think that’s strong enough.
Yeah, sure. But we still can discuss our beliefs
I didn’t get that.
You mean, they can’t say that art is created by our brains?
Of course our brains have control over it. But that’s not the point. When you create a piece of art it’s like it’s part of you. Like a piece of you. And yeah, I’m talking about how it feels but there is no other way to explain.
I’m done talking about it.
I’ll never be able to give you proof. There is none! Just some gut feeling I have and there is no way explaining such things.
This makes it very weak, cos we don’t know much. But if it satisfies you, you can accept them. (I’m joking, you’re not wrong [utterly ]). Actually it’s the science that controls the way you think, and politicians control the science. It’s not completely trustworthy.
THE bottom line was the above-mentioned “F” . As a “skeptic and pessimistic believer” I don’t even see any point in proving things (except it’s fun to talk to you guys).
Anyway…
@gisoo13 You’re probably focusing on moralities as an intangible example of the existence of something spiritual and Matin is focusing on the physical act of love (THE bottom line, in a way ) as an example of living in a material world. But when I said “love doesn’t exist”, I meant more like: people care and love only if you have a use for them, but they respect you because of something else and that’s better (and the reason is: they want respect too; that’s enough for me, the respect).
Of course, you’re not dreaming; you’re in a coma. But joking aside, feelings can change. Do not base your thought on them (I think I got it wrong what you said, but who cares ).
OK, I take that back, but you keep the “kitten”. Although, I thought you meant “hard-headed”. If I knew you meant talkative, I’d use “tweeting baby chick”. 
(This emoji is not “kiss”. It’s “phew” 
)
(
(
Sorry
