Youtube comments of Phil Aypee (Philip Potter) (@philaypeephilippotter6532).
-
334
-
238
-
101
-
92
-
63
-
61
-
56
-
52
-
51
-
42
-
40
-
34
-
33
-
31
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
There is no such thing as scientism.
You forgot to say if you know the X will not have an explanation, you're doing religion and if you know the scientific method has no hypothesis of abiogenesis but may have one sometime, you're doing science.
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Perhaps the adjective 'elderly' requires definition. In physics, mathematics, and astronautics it means over thirty; in the other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are, of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory!
Arthur C. Clarke
History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.
Robert A. Heinlein
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Oh dear!
King Arthur may have existed but even Leslie Alcock, a fine archaeologist, could find exactly no record in any archaeological source and the documentary sources are very non-specific except for those of the monk Nennius who probably had a political axe to grind (and his references are probably gleaned from the works of an earlier monk, Gildas the Wise, who doesn't mention Arthur ). No contemporary or early reference to the Battle of Badon Hill actually mentions any Arthur though centuries later he was said to be one of the key warriors.
Alcock believed in the legend of King Arthur and was assiduous in trying to find evidence of his existence. After many years he changed his mind and simply believed that a successful warrior had been shanghaied to the legend.
There were warrior kings (princes, chiefs, etc.) in all parts of England and Wales and any of these might have inspired the legend but the truth is that the evidence of Arthur 's existence is nowhere to be found.
It's quite possible that such evidence may be found but most archaeologists and historians doubt it. It is simply that very few contemporary (or near) documentary sources exist and, at the time, most artefacts that weren't metal were made of biodegradable material that has simply rotted (that's why it's called The Dark Ages - there are very few written records).
As for distinguishing between the Welsh and the Britons it's far too simplistic to say that they're simply the same. By that token you could say that the Bretons fall into the same category as their language, and in some cases even their DNA, are closely related. The actual truth is that there was no Wales, no England, no Ireland, no Scotland and no France but the societies in all those areas were related - the languages all spoke at the time prove that.
All of this can probably be found on Wikipedia.
Anthony Price wrote an extremely entertaining espionage thriller called Our Man In Camelot which revolves about Badon Hill - it's well worth reading. 🍻
I quite understand that many find Francis Pryor difficult and some dislike him but he is a respected and knowledgeable archaeologist. His contributions to 20th/21st century archaeology are highly respected.
I'm quite certain that I posted this in reply to another post, probably by a Wilson & Blackett believer, but it seems that that post has been deleted while mine has been kept. I don't mind, I just want to keep things in perspective.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@spoodlydoodler3552
He's not being sceptical, he's being dishonest.
At first I thought he was just honestly sceptical which is why I wanted to know more of his views. I'm not close-minded, not even about creationism. But he tap-danced around the issue. He changed definitions to suit his argument, denied that proof can even exist outside mathematics and cites the simulation idea as an argument when it is effectively a non-falsifiable concept and, in any case, merely shifts the problem back infinitely. He's stated categorically that abiogenesis cannot be demonstrated to be a plausible process that happened in the past.
He said I am still waiting for a plausible, non-hand-waving explanation of the details of abiogenesis. Fine, so am I. Later he said None of the lab research on the subject has proven anything about jumping from non-life to life or how it is done which is untrue. The chain of necessary chemical reactions as far as ribosomes is known and from RNA to DNA and primitive cells has been shown to have a high probability. These are processes that the early earth environment would encourage.
Even the early Urey-Miller experiments showed the possibility of abiogenesis.
So I think I'm justified in thinking he's a creationist troll. If he can demonstrate persuasively that he isn't I'll apologise and climb down.
But thank you for your concern, I do truly appreciate it. 👍😉
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong
Arthur C. Clarke
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
You may be rather disappointed to find that Wilson & Blackett are ploughing a lonely furrow.
They won't show anyone their research but simply expect people to take their word. Their books are published by a vanity publisher (they own one). They have used an invented pre-Gaelic language, Coelbren Y Beirdd, faked physical evidence and, despite the hype, Alan Wilson is not a well-respected historian while Baram Blackett, alias Brian Terry inter alia, is at best a dilettante. They have offered no evidence for peer review, they simply say that they're right and that anyone who disagrees with them must therefore be wrong. They have also probably damaged good archæological sites that they refuse to identify to real archæologists.
The second of their Kings Arthur is apparently pure invention while the other is actually two real Welsh Princes, Anthun and Annun Du , concatenated and renamed.
Obviously there must be a global conspiracy against them. 😉
If you want to know more about both the legend and the possible reality of Arthur read Leslie Alcock’s book Arthur’s Britain - but it must be his final edition. Alcock was a superb archæologist who fervently believed in an historical Arthur.
The legend of King Arthur is far more important than faking his historical existence. He may be real and he may not.
https://beechwood44.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/wilson-and-blackett-for-beginners/ (this seemed to have vanished and the links to www.newcastle.gov.uk are now out-of-date but all of the pages are probably still available at the Wayback Machine)
http://www.badarchaeology.com/controversies/looking-for-king-arthur/the-archaeology-of-arthur/ (this is current at 19/02/2020)
There are many other I'Net pages about Wilson & Blackett but proper open-minded archæologists' comments never, never support them. They are only supported by unqualified people who have been convinced by their claims of a conspiracy against them.
Shortly after posting this comment I edited it but the only thing I changed was the reference to Coelbren Y Beirdd. I actually knew that this was actually invented by Edward Williams but I had momentarily forgotten it.
Mea culpa.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@FarnhamJ07
I totally agree.
I think that the theists who insist on creationism and other such nonsense are frightened of the true vastness of the universe - but I truly can't understand why. That idea fascinates me but it doesn't scare me at all. If I were offered a free space-flight (unlikely at my age and with my health) I'd jump for joy!
I'd probably fall over on landing but I'd definitely jump!
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
Carl Sagan
I'm watching AronRa'a Supposed Lies In The Textbooks right now. I know he's right - but - I live in 🇬🇧 and we don't have that problem. It nearly happened with faith schools but that problem has almost died out. In Scotland (🏴) it is actually illegal to teach creationism - illegal!
Art phallique, art phallique, art phallique en ouate!
Or Lin de va lit oeuf dettes, rôde de sexe; un d'arrête
For ouate; de l'ail tee Brie gaide.
Char je fort de gonze y s'aide.
Indu de va lit oeuf dettes, rôde de sexe, un d'arrête.
A. d'Enisonne.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Angelmou
Though I was aware that few creationists have actually read the Xtian bible I hadn't thought about why.
It is indeed long and boring. I read the KJV decades ago and it was its content that made it ridiculous to me. Apart from the seemingly interminable begatteries (and Archbishop Ussher actually studied them‽) there are so many inconsistencies and obvious lies.
In Europe, Australia and many parts of the Xtian world most are quite certain that the Xtian bible was not written to be taken as absolute truth, even the RC church takes much of it as allegory.
But once, centuries ago, few people could read, and even fewer could read Latin, and those who could read, clergy mostly, controlled everything. I suspect that the religious fundamentalists, though not illiterate, have much the same mind-set as those peons of yore.
What really annoys me is that people who do know better dishonestly preach biblical inerrancy and invest time and money finding fraudulent and disingenuous arguments to support what I see as an insupportable dogma.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe anything because it s found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept and live up to it.
Buddha Siddhartha Gautama Shakyamuni
God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?
Epicurus c. 341-270 BC
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
Carl Sagan
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@strummy77
Actually you're wrong.
Biochemistry or biological chemistry, is the study of chemical processes within and relating to living organisms. So you think that abiogenesis is not related to living organisms? But abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL), is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Oh, and In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL), is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. to make it clearer.
So both of your posts were entirely wrong.
What a shame, how sad.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
They don't need to explain anything as they know we couldn't possibly understand anything.
Do remember that they know that they're the most intelligent people that have ever existed.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts
Bertrand Russell
Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is a ridiculous one
Voltaire
What actually amazes me is that anyone called it the Dunning–Kruger effect when it had been known since at least Socrates' time.
And in addition to these things, the young men who have the most leisure, the sons of the richest men, accompany me of their own accord, find pleasure in hearing people being examined, and often imitate me themselves, and then they undertake to examine others; and then, I fancy, they find a great plenty of people who think they know something, but know little or nothing. As a result, therefore, those who are examined by them are angry with me, instead of being angry with themselves, and say that “Socrates is a most abominable person and is corrupting the youth."
Plato quoting Socrates
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@freddan6fly
Well I've now watched Tour's #6 video.
He actually doesn't understand emergence!
He's quite obviously not a scientist by my standards. He's a technologist, which I was, but I was taught that you must understand the underlying science to be able to deal with the inevitable problems that will arise. This raised me to an engineer, which he's not.
Why was he given a teaching post?
I know it's a rhetorical question but he was given a teaching post at university professor level. That's ridiculous! He's not actually competent for that post.
Yes, he's competent to teach synthetic chemistry - but at professor level‽
Having said that my professor put his favorite metal-cutting rule, Merchant's Theory Of Metal Cutting, on our syllabus despite that:
A) it had been superseded decades before his undergraduate days,
B) it wasn't relevant to our studies and
C) I could grind a metal-cutting tool by eye that worked better than that rule allowed!
So could and did the technicians.
Back to school with you, Tour, and this time learn beyond your prejudices!
And yes, the flaturtha claims are ridiculous, even ludicrous.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidgould5708
I have apparently investigated more rigorously than you.
Alan Wilson is apparently a delusional, probably paranoid, schizophrenic who won't allow any of his so-called evidence or artefacts to be tested by experts. If any properly qualified archæologist or historian disagrees with him he just vehemently says he is right and they are wrong. The so-called ancient Welsh language he lauds, Coelbren y Beirdd, is actually an alphabet, a forgery perpetrated by Edward Williams, aka Iolo Morganwg, in the eighteenth century. Wilson actually hates the Welsh so the Arthur of legend doesn't get a look in. He and Blackett had his books published by a vanity publishing company they bought for the purpose as no reputable publisher would touch them. They have almost certainly damaged archæological sites.
Blackett, whose real name is Brian Andrew Terry, was convicted of handling stolen property and, like Wilson, is deluded although he may have encouraged Wilson out of some kind of malice or mischief.
http://www.badarchaeology.com/controversies/looking-for-king-arthur/the-archaeology-of-arthur/
https://beechwood44.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/wilson-and-blackett-for-beginners/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI5MlEZSHdw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pkJKy6HxKE
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
Carl Sagan, he was a hero of sense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
Carl Sagan
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tobiaszczarnota7879
It doesn't matter.
Censorship means that someone, or a group of someones, does the censoring - and they will be self-appointed. They can and will decide what you and I, and everybody else, can read, see or otherwise experience.
Would you want Shakespeare, Dickens, Molière, Chaucer, Confucius, Buddha or even Agatha Christie censored?
Censorship is tyranny.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ralph Ellis
You've got it right.
The idiot incompetent historian who claims that King Arthur is real is Alan Wilson, apparently a delusional, probably paranoid, schizophrenic who won't allow any of his so-called evidence or artefacts to be tested by experts. If any properly qualified archæologist or historian disagrees with him he just vehemently says he is right and they are wrong. The so-called ancient Welsh language he lauds, Coelbren y Beirdd, is actually an alphabet, a forgery perpetrated by Edward Williams, aka Iolo Morganwg, in the eighteenth century. Wilson actually hates the Welsh so the Arthur of legend doesn't get a look in. He and his friend Blackett had his books published by a vanity publishing company they bought for the purpose as no reputable publisher would touch them. They have almost certainly damaged archæological sites.
Blackett, whose real name was Brian Andrew Terry, was convicted of handling stolen property and, like Wilson, was deluded although he may have encouraged Wilson out of some kind of malice or mischief.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackslim100 I think that it's because to most people, and I confess that I'm one, the term Africa is usually understood to mean sub-Saharan Africa.
But you're entirely wrong to categorize anybody as black - they're not. I've known well Nigerians, Ba'jans, Kenyans, Moroccans, Mauritians and many others. I'm of greatly mixed descent myself and my mother was known at school as that black man's daughter. Everybody has a skin colour different to everybody else. Olu, from Nigeria, had the darkest skin I've known but Frank, from Barbados, was nearly as dark. I've known Punjabis nearly as dark and Sri Lankans nearly as pale as me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SpongeBob Imagination
You still don't know what bias means - and you obviously won't learn.
Don't be stupid silly, the god of the gaps has absolutely no evidence whatever and he is getting fewer places to hide in daily.
If primordial abiogenesis were to occur now it would have to happen under an electron microscope to be observed for the extremely simple reason that in this environment it wouldn't last more than a few seconds even with no competition from today's organisms.
Yes, I am aware that biological competition wouldn't happen in a sterile laboratory. I never suggested otherwise, you merely inferred it for no reason. Any life formed would probably still be sufficiently unstable as to be highly likely to die in an otherwise sterile environment.
Yes, it would need to be a primordial environment as that is required to make any experiment meaningful. Such an environment, though on a very small scale, could be made in a laboratory. But even in an appropriate laboratory environment such life would probably die very quickly (likely micro-seconds) and might take hundreds of years or more to emerge.
A full-scale primordial environment would actually be vastly more suitable than the sterile environment of a laboratory. The real world is much dirtier than a sterile laboratory and abiogenesis happened in the real world, not a laboratory.
As I said, you understand neither probability nor possibility. You parade your igno - no, I said something similar before. Read that.
Yes, you're extraordinarily arrogant, ignorant too.
Ordinary folk and scientists don't mind not knowing everything and like learning. We don't mind being proven wrong as that eliminates one possibility in the search for truth.
We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress
Richard Feynman
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts
Bertrand Russell
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phildavenport4150
I googled (or rather duckduckgoed 😇) rather, old fruit asterix and found this at https://scroll.in/article/898780/translating-asterix-jokes-and-puns-the-genius-of-anthea-bell-and-derek-hockridge which is facinating.
The joke in the French version centres on the word melon. In French, “melon” means both the fruit and a bowler hat. A half-melon is similar in shape to a bowler hat, as you can see in the picture. In this frame, the French are mocking the English way of dressing, or at least, the French idea of the English way of dressing: the chap to the left of the frame carries an umbrella, a fact which is discussed by Asterix and his English cousin; the grocer and his customer to the right of the frame are discussing the inflated price of a melon, thus adding the bowler hat to the umbrella, and – voilà! – we have an English businessman.
In English, the melon/bowler hat joke is lost. To keep a joke of some kind in the frame, the melon is no longer too expensive, this time it is rotten: “Oh, so this melon’s bad is it?” This allows the customer to respond to the grocer’s outburst with the words “Rather, old fruit!”, thus creating a joke about rotten fruit and the refined speech of the English, as perceived by the French. The elegant and cultured “Rather, old fruit!” is a rendering of the polished response in the French version – instead of “Oui,” or even worse, “Ouai,” the customer replies “Il est.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have apparently investigated more rigorously than you.
Alan Wilson is apparently a delusional, probably paranoid, schizophrenic who won't allow any of his so-called evidence or artefacts to be tested by experts. If any properly qualified archæologist or historian disagrees with him he just vehemently says he is right and they are wrong. The so-called ancient Welsh language he lauds, Coelbren y Beirdd, is actually an alphabet, a forgery perpetrated by Edward Williams, aka Iolo Morganwg, in the eighteenth century. Wilson actually hates the Welsh so the Arthur of legend doesn't get a look in. He and Blackett had his books published by a vanity publishing company they bought for the purpose as no reputable publisher would touch them. They have almost certainly damaged archæological sites.
Blackett, whose real name was Brian Andrew Terry, was convicted of handling stolen property and, like Wilson, is deluded although he may have encouraged Wilson out of some kind of malice or mischief.
http://www.badarchaeology.com/controversies/looking-for-king-arthur/the-archaeology-of-arthur/
https://beechwood44.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/wilson-and-blackett-for-beginners/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI5MlEZSHdw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pkJKy6HxKE
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hollyhartwick3832
I'm afraid(!) I'm not familiar with these small churches as that's not how religion works here in 🇬🇧.
Virtually all our priests/preachers have a fairly good religious education and our culture means we're very suspicious of bombastic rhetoric. Bible thumpers tend to be unpopular - happily!
Also despite our established religion most people espouse moral ideals that, in the 🇺🇸, are associated with atheist/humanist groups and people like AronRa and Matt Dillahunty. My old friend Austin, properly The Very Reverend Archdeacon Emeritus Augustine St John De Clare Studdert, was, by my, and probably your, standards an extremely moral man who vehemently disliked the kind of fundamentalism I see in the 🇺🇸.
The 🇺🇸 Episcopal Church is basically an offshoot of our Church of England and, as I understand it, is far from fundamentalist.
Similarly we don't really have apologists in the same way. Whilst Christopher Hitchens is/was a particularly strong advocate of rationality his basic attitude is endemic here. Many of us could, if necessary, take on the likes of WLC quite successfully. Hitchens actually took him apart!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Urien Rheged Gildas, being closer to the battle by at least a century, is rather more credible than Nennius. He may even have spoken to people who actually took part in the Battle of Badon Hill (though I don't think that he claims to have done so) which Nennius couldn't have done
As I said, I don't deny the possible historical existence of King Arthur, I merely say that there is no actual evidence for him other than Nennius. Even Bede doesn't mention him, a fact that some might consider conclusive even though it's only a bit persuasive. Without corroboration he may have even less real existence than Father Christmas (not Santa Claus, he was probably real).
I didn't mean that Nennius copied Gildas in any way and I didn't say it. What I said was that Nennius' writings are almost certainly based on Gildas' - perhaps I should have qualified that as I only meant the writings about the Battle Of Badon Hill.
With regards to Nennius bringing up King Arthur and Gildas not, you are assuming that King Arthur is real in order to justify his reality and that is circular reasoning - illogical. Gildas did not mention King Arthur and Nennius did and that's all it means.
Saint Tyslio, his name is immortalised as part of the artificial name of the village Lanfair P.G. (fully Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch ) on Anglesey, was a seventh century mid-Welsh bishop and I suspect that the Tysilio chronicle you refer to doesn't mention Arthur though I must confess that I haven't read it. In fact the only reference I could find on the I'Net said that almost nothing of his writing survives (I didn't look too hard but I did look). Is it part of the Welsh Annals or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles?
The Brut Tysilio is a rather more likely candidate but there is no evidence there either as it mentions that Uther Pendragon is Arthur's father and there is again no evidence for his existence. Also it has been proven, by the Welsh scholar Brynley F. Roberts, that the Brut Tyslio is an amalgam of several different histories that dates from about 1500 so it's hardly a reliable source. There's nothing to associate it with Saint Tysilio except the title.
In fact the part of the Brut Tysilio that refers to King Arthur reads more like either T. H. White or Howard Pyle than a real history.
Sir Flinders Petrie was a fine archæologist whose work was mostly in Egypt. He did a TV interview at and about Cadbury Castle (the one in Somerset ) and it was later dug by Leslie Alcock and later still by Barry Cunliffe.
None found any evidence of Arthur or Camelot! 😞
The apparent redundancy of my posts replying to you is easily explained - each one was in response to a separate one of yours. YT doesn't discriminate properly so they all appear together.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zripas
religion (countable and uncountable, plural religions)
(uncountable) Belief in a spiritual or metaphysical reality (often including at least one deity), accompanied by practices or rituals pertaining to the belief.
Synonym: faith
My brother tends to value religion, but my sister not as much.
(countable) A particular system of such belief, and the rituals and practices proper to it.
Synonym: faith
Hypernym: belief system
Islam is a major religion in parts of Asia and Africa.
Eckankar is a new religion but Zoroastrianism is an old religion.
(uncountable) The way of life committed to by monks and nuns.
The monk entered religion when he was 20 years of age.
(uncountable, informal) Rituals and actions associated with religious beliefs, but considered apart from them.
Synonym: superstition (pejorative)
I think some Christians would love Jesus more if they weren't so stuck in religion.
Jack's spiritual, but he's not really into religion.
(countable) Any practice to which someone or some group is seriously devoted.
At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion.
(uncountable, obsolete) Faithfulness to a given principle; conscientiousness. [16th-17th c.]
spiritual (comparative more spiritual, superlative most spiritual)
Of or pertaining to the spirit or the soul.
Respect towards ancestors is an essential part of Thai spiritual practice.
Of or pertaining to God or a place of worship; sacred.
Of or pertaining to spirits; supernatural.
Consisting of spirit; not material; incorporeal.
a spiritual substance or being
Of or relating to the intellectual and higher endowments of the mind; mental; intellectual.
(Christianity) Controlled and inspired by the Holy Spirit; pure; holy.
Not lay or temporal; relating to sacred things; ecclesiastical.
the spiritual functions of the clergy; lords spiritual and temporal; a spiritual corporation.
atheist (plural atheists)
A person who does not believe in deities.
(strictly) A person who believes that no deities exist (especially, one who has no other religious belief).
(broadly) A person who rejects belief that any deities exist (whether or not that person believes that deities do not exist).
(loosely) A person who has no belief in any deities, such as a person who has no concept of deities.
(uncommon) A person who does not believe in a particular deity (or any deity in a particular pantheon), notwithstanding that they may believe in another deity.
Since my beliefs go beyond atheism it isn't semantically the right word. There is no word I knew of to define my belief. A few days ago I discovered the comparatively new word apistevist. As I suggested it is probably a better word to describe my belief.
But you limit yourself to either/or definitions (theist or atheist) which isn't semantically unreasonable but I've never limited myself that way. It may come of using multi-valued logic professionally but I think I was thinking using multi-valued logic before that.
I don't come to any forum to proselytize (except occasionally about movies or railways - my passions second only to jazz), only to challenge those who do. My only concern is to ensure the innocent don't get conned. They need to see that there are usually at least two sides to any argument, often more. If someone doesn't proselytize then I have no reason to challenge them - and I don't. If I am challenged by a third party I'll often accept that challenge if it's promoting a similar view to the one I'm challenging. But I never, never, ask someone about their religious or spiritual beliefs except to ask them to expand on what they have already said - and I never insist on an answer.
I don't ask about other people's beliefs - for instance I haven't asked you about yours. Unless they're being pushed it's irrelevant. For the same reason I wouldn't volunteer mine even if I were otherwise prepared to discuss them.
Why so aggressive and didactic? I've been doing this, though rarely until about fifteen months ago, for over fifty years and when I've made a mistake I've apologized gracefully and genuinely. Have I offended you? If so just say so and why. If I agree I'll apologise as above. But there's no point in trying to get more information from me about my beliefs as none will be forthcoming.
And, as I'm sure you have guessed, I abhor trolls - I'm sure you do too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@formationbiz
Since when was commonsense a part of scientific research?
Quantum mechanics is contrary to common sense yet your computer relies on it. You incredulity is not evidence that either evolution or abiogenesis are wrong nor that any higher power is involved.
Sir Fred Hoyle was a clever man who coined the term big bang as a derogatory term for a phenomenon now proven except for the very first instants of this universe. He was wrong about other things too.
A 2007 opinion piece "Taking Science on Faith" in The New York Times, generated controversy over its exploration of the role of faith in scientific inquiry. Paul Davies argued that the faith scientists have in the immutability of physical laws has origins in Christian theology, and that the claim that science is "free of faith" is "manifestly bogus." The Edge Foundation presented a criticism of Davies' article written by Jerry Coyne, Nathan Myhrvold, Lawrence Krauss, Scott Atran, Sean Carroll, Jeremy Bernstein, P Z Myers, Lee Smolin, John Horgan, Alan Sokal and a response by Davies beginning I was dismayed at how many of my detractors completely misunderstood what I had written. Indeed, their responses bore the hallmarks of a superficial knee-jerk reaction to the sight of the words "science" and "faith" juxtaposed. While atheists Richard Dawkins and Victor J. Stenger have criticised Davies' public stance on science and religion, others, including the John Templeton Foundation, have praised his work.
By 2100, our destiny is to become like the gods we once worshipped and feared. But our tools will not be magic wands and potions but the science of computers, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and most of all, the quantum theory.
Michio Kaku
Sean Carroll was not writing about the universe being fine-tuned for life, he was writing about the physical constants of the universe.
Stop cherry-picking your quotes, it's pathetic.
Quit while you're behind
Dr Feelgood
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Panspermia is an hypothesis, not a theory.
Yes, organic chemicals have been identified in asteroids, meteorites, comets and even in space itself. This is not evidence for panspermia.
Wikipedia defines panspermia.
Panspermia (from Ancient Greek πᾶν (pan) 'all', and σπέρμα (sperma) 'seed') is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by space dust, meteoroids, asteroids, comets, planetoids, and also by spacecraft carrying unintended contamination by microorganisms. Distribution may have occurred spanning galaxies, and so may not be restricted to the limited scale of solar systems.
There is, maybe as yet, no evidence for this hypothesis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1