/lit/ - Literature

>>1736359
Embrace for a mental breakdown of some teenager now. YOu just presssed the "individuality"-button.

Shistorm awaits or a..

If I where you i'd first get an encyclopedia on philosophy and then find what I would most likely enjoy reading. There's tons on this subject and you don't want to waste your time.

>>1736350
I find it offensive that you take these writers associated by me. I'm a proud basement dweller and I'd prefer you not linking me to "fascists". Most of them where religionisticalists and I want nothing to do with it.

Please proceed and leave my basement and me alone!

If I am not god, then how come he exists?

>>1736281
I have done ritalin plenty of times. And it is stricly and nothing but an enhancer in my studies.

Oh well, paranoid politicians are doing the right thing. All the weakminded religionisticals would probably just OD on it if they all got it for free.

Do you now any valid website? Have fbi taken them all down?

>>1736260

You can always put a blanket over that void we all have inside and pretend you're a superstitional religionisticist. It is very pleasant and opiating as well. Almost just as good as the real thing! Are benzopiates gODS?

>>1736278

Imagine a world without religionisticals. Without fundamentalists and eastern secterians.

Ahh, what a dream. One day the Religionisticalist gene called VMAT2 will get wiped out. Oh Natural selection!

>>1736258
The faster we get rid of them, the sooner it will go over.

Good luck getting ritalin. I've been trying to get it for years now.

>>1736251
wasn't jung religionistally OD'ing himself into critical mind-numbness?

Does any discovery he has made have a law? If so please state that now and I will analyse it's differential properties. If not then to horsebags with him, nothing personal.

>>1736243
>>1736243

I hope not. And I certainly hope everybody in here is smarter than me! Then I will have so much to learn from all the superiors.

Although if you're religionistally contaminated be prepared to get blown away. (Jebus style)

>>1736220

And why wouldn't the religionisticals take the first opportunity to destroy this technology. Its more then likely going to break "the holy morals."

>>1736240
>implying fucks could be given either way about anyone in here.

>>1736232

Good , now you see your flesh rottening and decomposing. Conjuring with the land. Eventually becoming a gas that emits out of the ground.

How does it feel? You are now halfway out of religionisticalism.

That's the spiriticism brother. Ramen!

I'd probably consider it nauseating at best.

>>1736221
For some reason religionisticist preacharians always approach me. Even on the street this happens..

Fucking always! Why is this? Do I look like i Like religionisticals?

Maybe they have some kind of manual for certain individuals.

>>1736213

Don't you dare to insinuate gODS! The youth-corruption is alltime high bro. Poeple actually "hate" science. thanks to the religionisticals.

In fact, we would already be having free blood and plastic organs by now if it werent for the stemcell-research ban.

>>1736192
You are trying to evade the inevitable with this platitudes. You will DIE and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

You will not live for an eternity!

Just embrace it! And feel free for the first time.

Only people/kids who live with their parents, sit in coffeshops.

This thread has turned into one of those russian wooden dolls. You think you've finally been trolled for the last time only to realize that there's a troll yet again inside even deeper. So let's pretend I mean t..

REALIZE THIS:

We all have a desire to live for ever, and everybody is afraid of death. Some can't cope with this and they get all defensive.

But be a realist do you really want to give people something to exploit you with? Do you want them to use this thumbscrew to screw you over and take your money?

No? Then help destroy the religionistic establishment today.

>>1736158

Why would I want to please the religionistics with pleasant rhetorics when I owe them nothing but contempt?

>>1736159
I would actually read a paper titled like that with genuine affection.