BF2S Forums (Female) Asian discussion thread 4.0

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Nyte wrote:

It's called a Thesaurus thank you very much.  Not as much as you sucking his dick all the time though.  You two can be butt buddies.

"i copulated with women"

lol who the fuck says taht

that's why i said he must be a 'sprger.

a) who uses a thesaurus when they post here? seriously.

b) copulate is, like, a zoological term. it's so scientific it wouldn't even come up in most sex-ed classes. you do not tell a friend you "copulated" last night.

a) I use it here all the time.  I want to impress you because I think drugged up boiler room hipster doctorates are sexy as fuck.

b) Best word ever.  Seriously though, in keeping with the tone of the post, I deliberately used that word instead of "I fucked her".

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i'm not sure you can sum up high-level philosophy in 1-5 sentences. nor can you understand an idea in its entirety without being familiar with the doctrine from the ancient greeks onwards. that's the thing with these non-engineering subjects: they take work and actual reading.

let's just make it easier: what do you think nietzsche's famous 'god is dead' statement means? that one can at least be understood literally without needing to have read aristotle.

I'm not sure of the context of that statement (I might have read it years ago but forgot).  To take that statement solely at face value with a sprinkle of philosophy, I take it to mean that (in brief):
- We have a history of creating a God(s) and religion based around it.
- Morality is "created" from these religious works/teachings.
- Different societies create different God(s) and religions.
- Sectarian violence (disagreements) amongst these societies undoubtedly arise because each God(s) and its associative religion define themselves as being omnipotent (ie. there can only be one).
- All this violence is created by us in the first place from the inception of an omnipotent being that dictates our morality.  Also, the clashes between different religions (or its sects) contradicts the morality dictated for us in the first place.
- We've effectively killed morality (ie. the God(s) we associated ourselves with) in this sense.

It's 10:40 PM so this is the best I can muster at this hour given no context.  There's also a point about basic human instinct/nature that I wanted to mention but it'd be too long.

I have a feeling that that statement is anti-religious (I'm an agnostic atheist).  Trying to point out that religion will always end up in a state of corruption and "immoral" behavior (relative to the morals of the religion under discussion).

Last edited by Nyte (2013-07-24 19:47:01)

Honestly MacB, you are gonna end up with a lady boy...

And one of the few asian pornstars with a decent size ass.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And one of the few asian pornstars with a decent size ass.

Macbeth wrote:

Whenever I hear about Flushing I think of Fran Drescher.

It's a neighborhood in Queens that's filled with Asians.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

Nyte wrote:

(I'm an agnostic atheist).

That isn't possible.

Why not?  I claim there is no God but I can't prove or disprove it.

I've heard that sort of convention explained that the "agnostic" part acknowledges you do not "know" there is or isn't a good, but he believes there is not (i.e. atheist).

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

pointless tautology. no atheist (or theist) can ever conclusively prove the existence or non-existence of god. that means everyone would have to append 'agnostic' in front of atheist, technically. pointless.

Exactly.  Except for Dawkins who seems to be pretty sure.  Or what he calls "militant".

DesertFox- wrote:

Nyte wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

pointless tautology. no atheist (or theist) can ever conclusively prove the existence or non-existence of god. that means everyone would have to append 'agnostic' in front of atheist, technically. pointless.

Exactly.  Except for Dawkins who seems to be pretty sure.  Or what he calls "militant".

So you're agreeing with him that what you said was pointless?

I'm a technical guy so I pride myself on being articulate by placing "agnostic" in front of it.

But I dis-associate myself from those atheists which are militant in nature which seems to be the prevailing trend amongst many liberals/redditors.  I have no qualms with religion or God, just don't force it on me and we're peaches and cream.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

if you pride yourself on being technical, remove the 'agnostic' part of 'agnostic atheist'. because it is a tautology. i.e. it is completely redundant. it renders a precise meaning imprecise. drop it.

That's the thing, by removing it I am henceforth associated with "militant" atheists.  It's a meaning that has been coined by Dawkins and permeated so much within the realm of atheism/theism that it has effectively been associated with regular atheists (ie. you're either with us or not).

By appending it, I rid myself from them.

Wtf is agnostic christianity.