The Queen, as Head of the Church of England, does not recognize the Catholic Saint George, right?

My second and final paper of my first year back at college done.

It was a slog I am hoping to post some more here but a couple of the discussion I would have gotten into got pretty deep pretty quick and I didn't have the time.

Congrats. Probably feels as if a great weight has suddenly disappeared from your shoulders. You should have sent the paper to me for critique and review. I would have spiked it up for you and added some zest to it. Nary a pic of a perky nipple from a hot babe referenced, I wager.

First year back - so I assume you are restarting after some hiatus?

Looking forward to your usual good insights and informative posts.

Oh and just for fun below is something I recently posted in a SMP thread. Inserted below for your edification and as a reward for slipping through another year at college.

______________________


Every actual animal is somewhat dull and somewhat mad. He will at times miss his signals and stare vacantly when he might well act, while at other times he will run off into convulsions and raise a dust in his own brain to no purpose. These imperfections are so human that we should hardly recognize ourselves if we could shake them off altogether. Not to retain any dullness would mean to possess untiring attention and universal interests, thus realizing the boast about deeming nothing human alien to us; while to be absolutely without folly would involve perfect self-knowledge and self-control. The intelligent man known to history flourishes within the dullard and holds a lunatic in leash. He is encased in a protective shell of ignorance and insensibility which keeps him from being exhausted and confused by this too complicated world; but that integument blinds him at the same time to many of his nearest and highest interests. He is amused by the antics of the brute dreaming within his breast; he gloats on his passionate reveries, an amusement which sometimes costs him very dear. Thus the best human intelligence is still decidedly barbarous; it fights in heavy armor and keeps a fool at court.

-George Santayana: The Life of Reason, Volume 1.

Ha yeah those first two sentences sound like the author could have been talking about me this last week.

Cheers, I returned to college after 20 years so it's good to get the first year out of the way.

go dereds!

Thank you, am happy to see you're still purple I'm not sure why but it suits.

I haven't really been 2p2'ing much lately, but I drop by occasionally. I went off in search of other religious forums :P

Did you find anywhere else worthwhile? You can PM me if you don't want to share it publically.

OOT thread has Vanity Fair's first 'reveal' of Caitlyn Jenner (was Bruce Jenner). I don't necessarily recommend reading the thread, in fact I don't expect any of the worst comments there to be views shared by anyone regular in RGT - RGT can be far too moderate sometimes, drama-wise!

But the photo at least is pretty good, in fact I think she looks great! There's a legitimate question of whether this is just more fame-hungering from a famous for being famous family, but Bruce talked about using fame as a platform for transgender issues, and fingers crossed this will get more people talking about it.

An interesting read on the new Quran found in Birmingham, England dated very early in Islam's beginning. The problem? It might be too early to match the traditional narrative of how the Quran came to be.

http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1589562.ece

http://qz.com/476722/be-careful-your...like-religion/

So I read the topic titles in this subforum.

I don't think I'll be visiting again. I don't like laughing.

Hey RGT, what's new?

Heh sup zumby, batair's kinda nailed it there very quiet with the occasional resumption of hostilities. I've migrated to politics pretty much uke_master can often be found there but other than occasionally Aaron getting embroiled as Aaron is wont to do not much.

Ah well. I guess we all kinda thrashed out everything worth discussing a while back.

Regards to all

God is taking a vacation in Monte Carlo. Come back after he sevens out at the craps table, or loses His robes at the Roulette wheel.

Then we can get back to saving humanity from itself, defending The Pope, kowtowing to imbecilities, and confessing our sins to Trump.

I must not post for 7 days. Let this be my last post for 7 days.

Well, good sir- the almighty hands of our industrious moderators have once again seen fit to truncate our conversation! No matter- I'll pick up by responding to your post from this morning (which has since been deleted) and to post # 133 (the last post that remains in our exchange after the most recent deletion), in that order.

First off, thank you for conceding (yet again) by failing to retort to my response above, including that we are not talking about cosmology lol (always nice to know that your opponent understands the topic of the debate). Almost every statement you've made in this exchange has been refuted. Your response? Unilateral and delusional declarations of victory. Classic.

Misleading quotation. It was in response to your statement that you were being "intentionally ambiguous", when you had already stated that you were "clearly" referring to Original_Position (unfortunately, that post was deleted by Original_Position, so I can't quote you directly). The "no, you did no such thing" was pointing out that contradiction and how a reasonable person could easily assume that you were referring to me (as opposed to Original_Position or someone else). The entire POINT of the debate was that your post was ambiguous and that your claim that you were "clearly" referring to Original_Position was absurd. Epic fail at misrepresenting your opponent, not to mention a pretty egregious ethics violation .

Let's see what you'll fabricate for your quaternary achievement. If you're counting, I think I'm up to like my nonary achievement (if you count the refutation of your "random ellipses" quip, which you quickly dropped). =D

And now to respond to post # 133 above:

As I explained afore, you've admitted to making an intentionally ambiguous and inflammatory remark. Instead of apologizing and correcting the error, you began dropping ego-bombs to shore up your massive intellectual insecurities. Not too cool, Mickey. When something is objectively ambiguous, it will remain objectively ambiguous, regardless of the "brightness" of the interpreter. Are we learning yet?

Contradiction. You just admitted to being intentionally ambiguous. How is it a reading comprehension failure? Also, yes you did state what I claimed: you at first mentioned that you were "clearly" referring to Original_Position. Now you claim you were being "intentionally ambiguous". Contradiction after contradiction.


Typical defense mechanism: after losing the argument, pretends he is a troll. Nice.

Well, as I made clear before, the fact that I'm able to drag an individual with an overgrown ego up and down denial avenue with relative ease makes my minor worth its assignment paper weight in gold. Take a rest, if you like- ego bruises can be pretty nasty at times.

I did come at you in public. You ignored 90% of my refutation of your posts. Now you're trying to save face for your failure to respond. Cute. Try to keep the ad hominem defense mechanisms to a minimum, please (I've extended you the same courtesy).

So when you're getting your behind handed to you on a silver platter, you just create this fantasy world where you're somehow winning? I guess that's where all of these "secondary" and "tertiary" achievements come into play lol.

This has already been explained to you: I had no other way of continuing the debate. Thank you for admitting that you lack the intellectual vigor to engage the substantive issues, but rather are more interested in making a pretense of ego to a crowd (which you are also losing).

You know the drill.

In case you ignore the post above, allow me to summarize:

1) The underlying confrontation was about whether your original post was ambiguous. You at first argued that it "clearly" referred to Original_Position. Then, after realizing that such an argument was untenable, you switched to arguing that it was "intentionally ambiguous." Finally, you contradicted this position by making reference to a "failure of reading comprehension" regarding your intent (which contradicts your "intentionally ambiguous" position: if something is intentionally ambiguous, then how it is a failure of reading comprehension to discern the true intent)? So...yeah....

2) Realizing that your argument has been refuted, you now pretend that you were arguing for ambiguity all along. The "no such thing" quote from me is taken from the context of highlighting the contradiction between your "intentionally ambiguous" and "failure of reading comprehension"/"clearly" statements. My argument was that a reasonable interpretation of your comment could easily lead someone to believe that you were referring to me (and not to Original_Position, as you initially claimed).

Pro tip: instead of deflecting with unilateral declarations of victory, just admit you made a silly and inflammatory comment, which you then attempted to defend by claiming that it was "intentionally ambiguous" (even after claiming that it "clearly" referred to Original_Position).

You know the drill. =D

Total victory accomplished.

Concession accepted. Feel free to reengage at any time.

-Lychon

Tame Deuce's dictionary has confused me.

My parents were not ostensibly religious or atheistic. I was educated in my early years in a mild and benign Christian tradition. Like many children, I attended a Church of England primary school, where we sang hymns and said the Lord's Prayer in assembly each morning. I consider religion to be a rich and complex affair of which I am largely ignorant: one could spend a lifetime studying it and still only scratch the surface. The idea that its value is predicated on the truth or falsity of the proposition "God exists" is therefore, to my mind, obviously absurd. I consider a religious aspect to the major events in life, such as funerals, to be appropriate. Thirteen years ago I went in a church and prayed to God. Other than that, I don't think about it much.

Am I an agnostic, a weak atheist, or neither?

A) Do you have a belief in a personal God?
YES: you are a theist, NO: you are an atheist
---
B) Do you know whether there is a God or do you think the existence of God is knowable?
YES: you are a gnostic, NO: you are an agnostic

Combine A and B to find out what you are.

---
EDIT: Atheism/Theism is the answer to the question of belief. Agnosticism/Gnosticism is the answer to the question of knowledge or ability to know.

I wouldn't use that word for this. It has a lot of extra connotations that go beyond what you're using it to mean.