We cannot have an opinion

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,A hungry Musket sans cookie jar
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:55 PM

I have an opinion that Sheffield Wednesday are the only team to support.
It is a fact that their record suggests looking elsewhere.

I have an opinion that Richard Thompson writes and performs like no other.
It is a fact that musical appreciation is subjective.

I have an opinion that my pet greyhound must have been abused in his racing days.
It is a fact that so many trainers have been convicted of cruelty, my opinion might have facts to back it up, but it's still just an opinion.

I have an opinion that Mudcat moderators occasionally moderate on the basis of personal stances on a subject.
It is a fact that Max requires them not to.

I have an opinion that WW1 soldiers were influenced by jingoism and let down by inept leadership.
It is a fact that the war grave cemeteries contain white slabs to beyond the horizon.

I have an opinion that some use Mudcat to justify their less savoury views.
It is a fact that you can only judge what you read, and sometimes it ain't pretty.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:52 PM

My opinion that Liverpool are the greatest club in the world and that Bill Shankly was greater than God himself is fondly held but ultimately untenable. But it doesn't actually do anyone any harm no matter how often I say it. I would say that as a deluded fool I'm entitled to that opinion. What I'm not entitled to is to expect my opinion to remain unchallenged. I'm also not entitled to force my opinion on anyone else or to employ it as hate speech. What goes on in my head is one thing. Once it gets out of my head I'd better be prepared to justify it.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:42 PM

Why do people lie and cheat to get their kids into a brainwashing factory?

What do all living historians who write for the tabloid press and have their books available in real bookstores have to say on this question, Keith?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Not Jack if it helps
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:38 PM

Opinions are on different levels.

You have opinions based on your mental capacity. Opinions based on insular upbringing. Opinions based on being learned and well read, on good logical understanding, on personal experience, on second hand experience or empathy, on bigotry, on vendetta or agenda, on lots of other things too.

You also have opinions based on whether you denigrate or cause others to change their opinions of sections of society based on your discrimination.

Then a peg is required to put on your nose. The small people have arrived

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:30 PM

Why do people lie and cheat to get their kids into a brainwashing factory?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:27 PM

The problem's not so much with opinion, belief, faith, but with the state using our taxes to fund such things. In my local area, two out of five primary schools and one out of two secondary schools are faith schools. I'm not having it that that reflects the local community (though it seems that plenty of people miraculously develop a faith just about the time they need to decide which school to send their kids to...). What it means is that people of faith don't just have an opinion, they have one I'm expected to subsidise. That's where it stinks.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:57 PM

But never tell them they're not allowed to have their opinion.

Bur you can sure as hell prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their opinion is 14 karat bullshit and tell them so.

Whether they accept said proof or not, since stupid is as stupid does.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:55 PM

Many have opinions. Do they, however, have a RIGHT to that opinion? Only (in my opinion) if it is informed and rational.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:36 PM

I'm not aware that anyone here has said that anyone else is not entitled to their opinion. But no-one's entitled to have their openly-stated opinion unchallenged. Of course, if they are challenged and fail to respond, they look like utter bellends. Don't forget, an opinion that can't be supported by its owner may well be a sign of second-handedness, of predigestion, of prejudice or of bigotry.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:12 PM

Well said the Raedwulf.... Long time no see?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 02:45 PM

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. There doesn't need to be evidence. It is, after all, an opinion.

However, if verifiable facts (I refrain from defining "fact"!) are not involved, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Yes, all those freaks, losers, call them what you will, who strangely have an opinion that is unacceptable, illogical, or just downright stupid... Guess what? They probably think your opinion is the same.

No-one is right. That's what an opinion is. A view. That's all. Believe what you want. Accept that other people are allowed the same. If you don't agree with them, you can argue against them. But never tell them they're not allowed to have their opinion. Do so & you just told yourself the same thing...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 02:38 PM

"The nature of God, as generally defined, is said to be beyond logic, which prevents either side from proving its case."

Who says so? Believers, of course! This 'argument' always sounds to me like someone making up the rules as they go along: "heads I win, tails you lose!"

I still think that the onus is on the EVANGELISING believer to support his case. Non-evangelising believers can believe whatever they like, as long as they stay away from me!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 02:29 PM

That very lack of evidence FOR is compelling enough evidence AGAINST.

No it is not.

Re miracles, if there is a supreme being that created the universe, it would be capable of making scientifically inexplicable things happen.

Human science has cracked virgin birth and transmutation of elements anyway, so nothing inexplicable about that.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 02:12 PM

There is no compelling evidence either for or against God's existence.   

That very lack of evidence FOR is compelling enough evidence AGAINST.

This doesn't work the other way around, alas, because the onus really has to be on the believer to prove otherwise. The non-believer merely gestures smilingly to the infinite wonders of the cosmos and says : 'Look! No God! No heaven! No hell! No afterlife! Just a universe of wondrous being (mostly) devoid of human bullshit of which God has to be a pretty rich & fetid example.'

*

Who are all these GUESTS anyway? Can't they distinguish themselves in anyway? At least when I post as a GUEST I come up with a name (Rïah Sahïltaahk being a recent one). so the debate can proceed in an orderly fashion. Log in or name yourselves. Gets confusing otherwise. Ta!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:52 PM

That kind of Virgin birth wouldn't be a miracle though as it would be scientifically completely explicable. That would be far too distressing for people of faith.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:41 PM

"Not true."
True, I' afraid - sorry if that offends.
"Until Keith and Jim got up and reentered the fray"
Putting the record straight - I'm gone
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,see note
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:36 PM

For information Could humans achieve 'virgin birth'?

(this from the GUEST who was debating with Steve and Jack)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:32 PM

The problem, Lighter, is that it's all very well claiming that reason is the wrong tool for considering God's existence, even resorting to calling it a whore, until you remember that the people who put God beyond reason in the first place had to abandon reason in order to put him there.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:21 PM

The only problem with all the reason, logic and constructive comment in Lighter's post above is that it forgets one important fact.

There is no such thing as God, unless it's the term you give to what we haven't worked out yet.

The God of bibles, other scriptures, island superstitions etc can easily be seen as illogical impossibilities that exercised the minds of medieval men and later, simpletons of today.

You can't have a baby without being impregnated, Angels don't exist, turning water into wine requires chemical interaction that can be easily explained if anyone does it, only Chris Waddle ever walked on water, dead men don't rise and if there was a man called Jesus who was nailed to a tree for pissing off those doing well under Roman rule, he didn't rise up to see his imaginary Dad.

Of course, you are free to have an opinion that such conjuring tricks and fables are impressive, and if they could be done, would be. But considering the bible's first line begins with an assertion that cannot be substantiated, it is a belief as opposed to being something to actually believe.

Up the Owls.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:04 PM

You don't know what you are missing, gnu. It has even been described as "Excellent discussion of opinion/faith/evidence/theory".

Doug, the opening statement, after a preliminary which will not make sense unless you knew that an earlier thread was deleted, is "I have been told that I am not entitled to an opinion unless I can back that opinion up with facts. I do not believe this to be true." The two opinions expressed were examples, nothing more. If you chose to try and make something of that, feel free, but it is an irrelevance.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:45 PM

> In this case the ONUS is on the believer to produce evidence to support his/her case. To claim, as a certain believer here often does, that God is unknowable/inexplicable etc. merely serves to undermine his case.

This, I think, is a special situation because, as the faithful acknowledge, theistic arguments are not bound by reason.

An onus exists only in a discussion based on reason alone, which is to be decided on known, accessible evidence. The nature of God, as generally defined, is said to be beyond logic, which prevents either side from proving its case.

Aquinas in the Middle Ages acknowledged that God's existence cannot be proved by reason alone, and, as I've pointed out elsewhere, Luther considered reason to be a "whore" that could be manipulated to "prove" anything.


Skeptics can state correctly that none of the evidence proffered for God's existence is conclusive. Except for miracles taken at face value, it isn't even impressive at first blush.

But "not impressive" does not necessarily mean "wrong" in terms of what really exists and what doesn't.

But there's no "onus" on skeptics either. They are not logically required to prove a negative about something that, by definition, is inexplicable and beyond human powers of reason.

If God exists and his methods and purposes inexplicable and unknowable, the use of reason to tell us anything (or anything much) about God would be pointless.

All agree that positive belief is indeed a matter of "faith" rather than of logic. Perhaps all faith is wishful thinking.

In any case, I believe all agree also that faith can indeed be misguided in terms of its consequences for others - and sometimes even for the believer: the Crusades, the Aztecs, ISIS.

Religions are notoriously contradictory. While nearly all recommend deep compassion, that compassion is most often for selected co-believers only. The natural world, moreover, exhibits no compassion whatsoever. Whether human compassion, such as it is, comes from inside or outside the human mind, from evolution or from God, is another imponderable.

There is no compelling evidence either for or against God's existence.   

The evidence, however, is extraordinarily compelling that *if* God's existence is real, that existence is poorly represented by *any* known religion, most of which hold to almost entirely contradictory tenets. Converts are people who have found their previous faith (or lack of it) to be "wrong," but every religion has converts and apostates. Some atheists get religion, and some fundamentalists become atheists. (That alone is almost enough to cast doubt on the truth of any given religion.)

And even *if* a God were the inexplicable, self-created source of the universe, one couldn't say very much more on the subject. What that God might want from us, if anything, or what his/her/its purposes might be, or how (or if) that God wanted to be worshiped, are questions that are beyond logical proof.

Which means that in spite of all arguments pro and con, God in some way either exists or doesn't. Get over it.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:42 PM

Didn't read the thread as my 'opinion' is I couldn't be arsed to do so after all the tripe and lard posted on previous contrary similarly titled threads. That makes 136 opinions, IMO, so the title statement is false.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Takes the biscuit
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:20 PM

Replies don't offend, their content may insult the intelligence of normal people though.

Funnily enough, I saw a poster outside a clappy happy church a while ago, stating that the bible is in the non fiction section of book shops.

Obviously meant Christian book shops.

Meanwhile, iTunes has a Kate Rusby album as country and western, so people quoting subjective nonsense in order to make their opinion seem like a fact is hardly credible is it?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:12 PM

Interesting that Keith says those he believes to be academics must be right about history but when two medical profs, a reader in public health and a registrar on a sexual health attachment all try to show him where is wrong with using health statistics to further his homophobic stance, we either don't exist or are not as clever as a retired PE teacher.

Views are, as I said, subjective. Reality doesn't move with bigotry, bigotry just looks all the more ridiculous.

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Thick Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Cunt Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:09 PM

You mean a recognition reached simultaneously by all members of the species ? A shared 'light bulb moment'.

Simultaneously? The jury's still out on that one. But Behavioural Modernity begins with the lightbulb (indeed we'd have no lightbulb without it, though it took a while) known as The Great Leap - and with it our essential humanity.

For more see : Behavioural Modernity

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:07 PM

My initial premise was about primarily political opinion.

Your opening post expressed an opinion on the best band on the folk scene. People having opinions on faith was also mentioned. Politics never came into it.

DC

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:06 PM

Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony is my favourite of the nine symphonies.

Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony is the greatest of the nine symphonies.

Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony is, in my opinion, the greatest of the nine symphonies.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:02 PM

Jim,
Tou settled on Sheffield and Hastings,

Not true.
What about the many quotes from all those others, especially those from Dan Todman, Catriona Pennel, Margaret MacMillan, heather Jones, Brian Bond, and Daniel De Groote?

(I claim right of reply. Sorry if it offends.)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 11:53 AM

There is every possibility that any given political opinion could be coloured by ignorance and/or self-interest and more.

I do find that quite significant, Steve. It could also be any other subjective opinion which involves matters of taste, background and many other factors. These are the things that I do not feel can ever be treated to fully objective analysis. The thing that started off this train of thought is much more this type of opinion. To be asked to explain it, when I know very well that whatever explanation I give would lead to the usual circular arguments, seems to be tactic relied upon by some posters on Mudcat. In my opinion that is :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 11:03 AM

I suppose some people held the opinion that Hitler was a great man who got it right. Political opinions are complicated. There is every possibility that any given political opinion could be coloured by ignorance and/or self-interest and more. Maybe the words right and wrong don't apply. But a political opinion can certainly be reached by a very dubious route.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:56 AM

We use the word conclusion in science at the end of an investigative process, an experiment for example, in order to weigh the probability of what may have been demonstrated. Note, however, that in experiments we do not set out to demonstrate, but to investigate. To obtain more evidence. There is nothing final about a conclusion. It's a statement of where we've got to so far.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:55 AM

Hmmm. I think we are now talking about at least 2, possibly 3, different things. My initial premise was about primarily political opinion. If you have a political opinion, I don't think it can ever be wrong or right. To ask someone to substantiate that opinion is what then becomes the circular argument calling upon higher and higher authorities. The second one, talking of higher authorities, is a religious belief in a divine body which can never be proved and relies on faith. The third is scientific theories, or conclusions, which are based on known evidence but cannot be considered wholly correct because there is always the possibility it could be disproved.

Can we agree that those are the different types of opinion and, maybe, concentrate on the first one?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:50 AM

I would ask him for his evidence. He would have fired my curiosity. Taking account of his credentials, and any corroboration he could offer, I would quite likely reach a conclusion as strong as the one I have now. My take on the word belief is that it has no place in the scientific process. It implies acceptance on insufficient evidence or none at all, and could be difficult to uproot. Of course, outside science we might use the word in a looser sense, which is fine by me. In fact, I haven't got as much to say about faith, in its religious sense, as you seem to think. I think that accepting an extremely unlikely claim, such as a phenomenon that goes against the laws of nature, as a act of faith is delusional, and I think it is wrong to try to pass it on to other people as truth. As for opinions, I have opinions about art, music and literature that are predicated on aesthetic considerations, and I don't need to show evidence for those. Opinions about the veracity or otherwise of things are a different matter. If you're my trusted mate, you may take me at my word. Otherwise, I half-expect, at least, to be asked to provide support. What we often argue about here is the nature of the support offered for opinions, which can often be very faulty. Read any post by our resident creationist to see what I mean. .

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:50 AM

Modern Humanity begins with that. You mean a recognition reached simultaneously by all members of the species ? A shared 'light bulb moment'.

The slippery slope of metaphor.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:37 AM

Maybe one made before your 'beginning'.

It WAS the beginning - that's the point. Modern Humanity begins with that. We became a breed apart from the rest of nature and can do with pretty much what we like with it - including domesticating wolves and turning them into a myriad of different dog breeds. We are thus storytellers and dog-breeders; we are the transfiguring alchemists of nature who can take the mineral deposits of a billion years and an understanding of the laws of physics and turn them into a mighty steam engine, or a nuclear bomb, or a contrabass clarinet.

We are the tricksters & myth-makers who end up believing our own hype.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:36 AM

... also conclusion is an odd word for something that might be re-assessed.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:35 AM

crossed with Steve

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:33 AM

Steve. If you were not a botanist and had not been to the top of Mt Etna but someone else was, had been there, and had made the same observations, what word would you use to describe your view on whether or not dandelions grew there ?

By only ever using belief to mean belief without evidence you are making the discussion of faith harder. Which is odd because you seem to like discussing it.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:23 AM

Not your first post DtG, but some of the initial posts followed a predictable trajectory.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:21 AM

"Steve says that no dandelions grow on Mt Etna, is that a belief, a theory or an opinion?"

None of those. It's a conclusion based on evidence that I know could be overturned. And I'm talking only about Etna's highest reaches. There are plenty of dandelions on the lower slopes. I've seen 'em, but you could find yourself asking for my evidence.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:15 AM

We know that Harry Potter is mythical because we can ask his inventor. But what about Robin Hood, William Tell and King Arthur? Ah, how the mists of time add lustre to the legends, never allowing the prosaic to get in the way. Go back even further and things get even more etiolated: Jesus, Moses, Noah...

And I told you, Acme. I do not believe that dandelions don't grow on top of Mount Etna. I have reached the conclusion that they probably don't from what evidence there is. My conclusion is ever open to revision should new evidence come to light.   People who believe in a supernatural being do so in spite of absence of evidence. Here's the difference. If it were ever possible to prove beyond doubt that God did not exist, millions of believers would be absolutely devastated. If someone found dandelions on top of Etna, I would be surprised, intrigued and delighted.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:12 AM

I wasn't sure, Acme. I agree about the going round in circles bit but, bearing in mind where I was coming from on this thread, I am still confused about the terms belief and opinion. If, in the above example, Steve says that no dandelions grow on Mt Etna, is that a belief, a theory or an opinion? It seems to me that people are happy to ridicule other peoples opinions but, according to some, ridiculing a belief is wrong. What is the difference?

Anyway, I don't want to labour the point. Just take it that I accept my opinions can be as wrong as anyone elses! What is this about starting off as ridiculous anyway? Cheeky monkey...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:04 AM

Doesn't change the fact that... It makes "In the beginning humanity saw itself as..." a poor start to the expression of a point of view.

My dog may see itself as the centre of a world in which other dogs are more like it than me and the cat. Recognising Nature as something to be of or not is quite a cognitive advance on that. Maybe one made before your 'beginning'.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:53 AM

Until Keith and Jim got up and reentered the fray this thread was an example of something extremely unusual a mudcat - a thread that went from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Excellent discussion of opinion/faith/evidence/theory/ and this one needs to be etched in stone:

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 06:36 AM

One reason arguments go round in circles here is sloppy use, both deliberate and accidental, of terms like belief.

It undermines the logic of people who are careful how they use terms. Deliberate misuse in a very specific way also devalues the arguments of people who are happy to use them informally.

How about about sticking with Faith as belief without evidence and Belief as a firmly held conviction.

That way people can believe in a deity and Steve can believe that dandelions do not grow on top of Mt Etna. I can choose to believe that dandelions do not grow on top of Mt Etna or can regard Steve's belief as an opinion that I won't waste time challenging unless either I have some more evidence or can point to a flaw in his evidence or logic.

In my humble opinion. Good job!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:50 AM

For goodness sake Keith and Jim. If you want to continue the history debate please do so on another thread. One of my main complaints on this one is that a round of people quoting one set of experts against another gets extremely tedious.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:47 AM

Anecdotally some hunter-gatherer communites do/did not regard themselves and other than Nature

Doesn't change the fact that as a cognitive / cultural species (the only cognitive cultural species who made The Great Leap in to Behavioural Modernity not so very long ago - see HERE for the basics) we are other from nature. No matter how far-out our philosophy of the cosmos, it's still philosophy, which is entirely unknown in nature. For sure, we are all Stardust but we left the garden behind thousands of years ago. Good for us, some of us anyway, most of us maybe, but not so good for the planet. Time, I think, we made another leap...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:37 AM

Sorry - missed a bit
Over and out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:34 AM

No Keith - those were out-of-context claims - the "quotes" were inconclusive and meaningless.
Tou settled on Sheffield and Hastings, refused to comment on the contradictions with the writings of all those you are still claiming supported your case - you insisted on "real historians" selling in "real bookshops" for the rest of us
Your tabloid journalist does not have the qualifications you insisted on for the rest of us mortals, whatever the Beeb choose to call him.
Sorry - You Lose (to borrow one of your own phrases) only it's not a "win or lose game for the rest of us.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:17 AM

Jim,
Your arguments relied on (out of context) quotes from one historian and one tabloid journalist

Not true Jim.
Below is a list of the historians I quoted.
I quoted them in context, with a link so it could be seen in context.
Not one was challenged as being out of context.

All the historians lead, or hold senior positions in, university history faculties except for Hastings.
He is an acclaimed historian by virtue of his research and his books.
Here the BBC places him at the head of their list of "ten leading historians" of WW1.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324


Saul David, Nigel Jones, Richard Holmes, Peter Hart, David Stephenson, Dan Todman, Gary Sheffield, Max Hastings, Malcolm Brown,
Stuart Halifax, Catriona Pennel, Margaret MacMillan, William Philpott,
Tristram Hunter, Dan Snow, Ian McMillan, David Renolds, heather Jones,
Jane Winter, Pierre Purseigle, Brian Bond, Daniel De Groote, Jeremy Paxman/OU History Dept.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:06 AM

In the beginning. Huh, what beginning?

Anecdotally some hunter-gatherer communites do/did not regard themselves and other than Nature. Quite definitely some religions are still polytheistic.