Doctrine: pick a mate women.
Broadcast your faith.0) In the priority 0) don't marry a woman who was married and has children.
1)In priority 1), draw only on the woman who has no children from a previous marriage.
2) A woman had married and have children, and if there are no children, but you totally imponiruet in relation to each other get married.
Crocodile
Crocodile wrote:
zaccarini
You in places not so remote.
Crocodile wrote:
of neo-paganism.
Shit for down.
Wing42
Wing42 wrote:
but ROC wants to establish his undisputed rule over your life
Doing the right thing.
Wing42
that is what this is all religion no one cares and that Islam is a Abrahamic religion, like Christianity and contains many General - no one knows?
Gauguin wrote:
Doing the right thing.
Clear.
Alextar wrote:
that is what this is all religion no one cares and that Islam is a Abrahamic religion, like Christianity and contains many General - no one knows?
I don't care. And why should it?
Gauguin
Gauguin wrote:
You in places not so remote.
I was just there.
Gauguin wrote:
Shit for down.
And the Abrahamic religion is not? Or are you just gonna throw words like a scholar, naturally?
Potsy, if we went on a religious theme, it is better to dilute the theme of useful bells dubstep
Crocodile
Crocodile wrote:
And the Abrahamic religion is not?
No, of course. Christianity >>>>>>>> all religion.
collector
collector wrote:
All there. A woman can not find, but in matters of religion scholars.
And why did it look?
RussianQuaker
...if experiments are done to test drugs or for testing some operations that will be applied to *people*, it is obvious that is better to do experiments, again, *people*, not rats.
...Is that all? However, not surprisingly for a typical intelligent species. In the end, it's not her fault. After all, only the leader or, as familiar to all intelligent individuals, the Fuhrer can give a lengthy and voluminous justification of their ideas. The lot of the ordinary reasonable individuals to be just that gray mass, which did not hesitate to gobble any nonsense of your favorite idol...
Spoileralert RussianQuaker not to get even untersturmfuhrer.
collector
Do not argue with a believer in materialism. He believes that is a bunch of atoms.
A bunch of atoms we are, it's not a matter of faith, since the existence of atoms is well established, and this knowledge is widely used in practice. And about all sorts of shower and other "subtle matter" — please proof to the Studio, and I probably missed some cutting-edge discoveries.
Vanya Rygalov
not surprising for a typical intelligent species
I came up with the interpretation of the word "Troll": a Typical Reasonable Individual, Loving a Lie.
Vanya Rygalov wrote:
...Is that all?
Yes, fully explain. If you're so smart that you can't understand even chewed, it is clear why something smart from you to hear is that someone forgot a comma or double consonant to deliver. And it's your job mental development. No fool by the way is not explained clearly, what's the catch to make it experiments on rats, when drugs for people generally make.
Veenine wrote:
I came up with the interpretation of the word "Troll": a Typical Reasonable Individual, Loving a Lie.
Here is another candidate for experiments. Since the experiments are suitable not only just untermensch, but who are generally against such a policy.
Veenine
Veenine wrote:
please proof in the Studio
What proof, lol? From a materialistic science? Loooooool.
Prefer will Sredny part. So as not indignant, did not soprotivlenye, not ran, it was to touch and where to insert.
Gauguin
What proof, lol? From a materialistic science? Loooooool.
Such a quick drain? Science is not divided into materialistic and what else, there is simply science and other ways of knowing the world. Science has proven itself as the most effective. Virtually everything about the modern world, is its fruit, until our ability to have this conversation. Science does not choose what to study and what not, it happens when it detects the subject of study. She would love to start learning the subjects of your fantasy as real objects, but if something does, then study is nothing. You have to understand: science does not say that there can be objects and processes, the observance of which is beyond the boundaries available to us now (or in principle) the tools, no matter how accurate they may seem (for example, characteristics of the equipment, which was opened by gravitational waves, just amazing). Perhaps some things we will never discover, because of the properties of the (Multi)Universe make this impossible. For example, the discovery of other universes. But one thing you can build such a speculative hypothesis, and quite another to talk about their fantasies as well-known facts and to look like fools and cattle to those who doesn't believe in them. If we assume that living beings will reveal something that a rough approximation can be called soul, then there is no doubt that it will make Biophysics using the scientific method, and complex devices (simple phenomena that could be studied on the knee, anyone, long over), but not spiritually rich in the Humanities through moral Masturbation.
Now for the proof. With them is also simple — they either have it or not, it doesn't matter who will provide them. When they are, why they are not present, and if not, why do you think is abnormal to disagree with you? Of course, I was being ironic, asking for proof as if talking about some quantum physics or cosmology. But what should followers of idealistic views as a result of the arguments they are correct? In fact, nothing prevents to bring to science what she supposedly avoids. Simply to make a neat experiment with reproducible results, then nobody will be able from such evidence to dismiss, it will be a breakthrough, a revolution in ideas about the world, what is just as committed to science.
And yet I want to say about it:
This is the philosophical position of plebeian and livestock, that's the problem.
On what basis such a conclusion? What you confused scientific picture of the world? It is in fact no obligation in terms of conduct. And from what we know of how the world works, better or worse, his appearance is not becoming. Wonderful feeling of love is not getting worse from what it is based on chemical processes in our body, and the observation of the starry sky begins to be less romantic from knowing that the stars are natural fusion reactors, not holes in the firmament, through which pours the light of the divine fire. We all consist of "the ashes" two generations of stars, which are billions of years was the synthesis of heavy elements. Isn't that cool, not romantic? I as a materialist, atheist, etc. I dare say, that from the knowledge of the Universe that science gives us to experience these exalted feelings, what feels not everyone calling themselves a believer, or an idealist.
collector
If your computer game there men will begin to study your world, reliably establish that their world is made of atoms-pixels.
Example is not necessary, because these men do not exist, it is only a picture, only generated more complex than an image on paper.
And we can be really connected in the Matrix, but even this guys are idealistic hypothesis, because it's just about the brain connected to a supercomputer. Everything is still material.
Horatio trust me there are many things that are dreamt of in your philosophy. (C)
No one is saying that everything is open. But it is one thing to assume this, and quite another to just say that is so-and-so, when there is no reason to think that this something exists.
RussianQuaker
Since the experiments are suitable not only just untermensch, but who are generally against such a policy.
Even if you drop all humanity, to experiment on whom got simply irrational. If for this purpose, for example, use of scientists, you will get a typical driving nails with a microscope. By the way, in the eyes of the guardians of literacy one who writes "in General" — quite a untermensch.