Why did the Biden people allow Joe to debate Donald Trump when he is in such condition? This finishes Joe? Was this a tremendous error by the Biden people, or, is it sort of a vetting process and will it allow them to dump Joe?

Good question, and, it remains to be seen. I suspect the Democrats are going to dump Joe, unless the polls show they shouldn’t. Maybe that’s why they wanted the debate so early — so they could dump Joe. And, that may be exactly what they’re going to do. Trump might be very vulnerable to any Democrat of sound mind, and sound body. Trump’s pretty messed up, himself. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Biden-people-allow-Joe-to-debate-Donald-Trump-when-he-is-in-such-condition-This-finishes-Joe-Was-this-a-tremendous-error-by-the-Biden-people-or-is-it-sort-of-a-vetting-process-and-will-it-allow-them-to

Ernest Nagel: The Structure of Science

https://www.hist-analytic.com/NagelTheory.pdf

Will Russians revolt against Putin if he loses in Ukraine?

You know, they might. That’s one of the reasons Putin will make gosh darn sure he doesn’t lose in Ukraine! That’s why he’s bringing large numbers of North Korean troops, along with their tactical nuclear weapons, into Ukraine next month. If Zelensky messes with Kim Jong-un, Kiev goes KAAAAAAAABOOOOOMMM!! https://www.quora.com/Will-Russians-revolt-against-Putin-if-he-loses-in-Ukraine

Is there a concept of "toxic femininity" or is it only "toxic masculinity" that is discussed?

Definitely, we are entering into an age of “toxic femininity” in which women are doing a lot of damage by frantically struggling to always get their way, no matter how much damage it does. We see this in the absolute gutting of the American military to “give women an even playing field”, there. We see this in the incredible tensions and disruptions being created in the workplace in order to make women not feel “harassed” in any way. We see this in the destruction of the family unit in the face of increasing demands from women of total control over it. These days, feminism and toxic femininity have become public enemy number one. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-concept-of-toxic-femininity-or-is-it-only-toxic-masculinity-that-is-discussed

Is it possible to merge science and religion? Can you provide examples of how they can be integrated?

They had no trouble whatsoever merging science with religion in the seventeenth century in Europe — they had the concept of “God as the Celestial watchmaker”. So, God provided a structure to the universe that science could uncover. Unfortunately, now, we simply have scientists playing God, making up their own structures, and then fabricating evidence to justify them. The advantage of the seventeenth century approach, was that scientists weren’t expected to just make things up, and then create evidence for them, like they do today. They were looking for what was actually there! Is it possible to merge science and religion? Can you provide examples of how they can be integrated? https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-merge-science-and-religion-Can-you-provide-examples-of-how-they-can-be-integrated

What was Lenin's life like before he founded the Soviet Union and became a major political figure?

Not really that great. A wandering, impoverished intellectual, trying to gain a following. Mind you, it probably suited him, and it probably gave him a lot of opportunities and freedom to develop his ideas, and pursue his ideals. Still, it wouldn’t have suited most people, at all. Too poor, uncertain, and rather lacking in direction, despite his ultimate, long term success. https://www.quora.com/What-was-Lenins-life-like-before-he-founded-the-Soviet-Union-and-became-a-major-political-figure

Atheism is idolatry, it attributes pre-eternity to the atom. It is an enemy of science, it rejects the big bang because it casts a shadow over the atom, which is its god. What do you think about this argument?

It’s not bad. The problem with atheistic science, is that it gives the scientists the powers of God, and scientists just aren’t as effective as God, are they? But, in atheistic science, they’re told that they are. Sir Isaac Newton, an ordained Anglican minister, was aware of this danger, and warned of its dangers. Scientists must focus on reality, and practicality, and be aware of their limitations, or they will go nowhere fast! https://www.quora.com/Atheism-is-idolatry-it-attributes-pre-eternity-to-the-atom-It-is-an-enemy-of-science-it-rejects-the-big-bang-because-it-casts-a-shadow-over-the-atom-which-is-its-god-What-do-you-think-about-this-argument

How do physicists decide what to study and determine the potential usefulness of their research?

Physicists don’t care about the potential usefulness of their research, that went out the window with Albert Einstein, when physicists went full tilt “theoretical”. Physicists consider themselves to be above mere practical usefulness. So, physicists try to find the most obscure things possible, then create the most sophisticated mathematical constructs possible to explain them, and, then, they will say that to understand the nature of reality you have to spend decades mastering these sophisticated mathematical constructs explaining the most obscure things possible, and, that if you don’t, you’re a “moron”. https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-do-physicists-decide-what-to-study-and-determine-the-potential-usefulness-of-their-research

Were there any attempts to stop Napoleon from invading England, aside from divine intervention?

I believe the Battle of Trafalgar, 1805, in which Lord Nelson lost his life destroying the combined French and Spanish fleets was a rather critical, and highly successful attempt to stop Napoleon from invading England. You see, as Adolf Hitler also found out, in 1940, it’s very, very difficult to invade England without a navy, or, if your navy has been largely eliminated by the British, and the British control the seas, as was certainly the case following the Battle of Trafalgar. Large armies simply cannot swim across the English Channel. This fact has proved quite critical to British history, for many centuries now. https://www.quora.com/Were-there-any-attempts-to-stop-Napoleon-from-invading-England-aside-from-divine-intervention?show_editor=True

Science is a belief so isn’t it a religion without a god?

Science is a religion, and science has Gods — Nobel Prize winners, for example. It’s not monotheistic, more polytheistic. Obviously, scientists believe things, and act accordingly, everyone does. Scientists will deny this sometimes, because they want to appear superior to others — they don’t “believe”, they just act on “evidence”. Like religious people don’t! Like beliefs aren’t based on evidence. Pure disinformation, to try to reinforce their credibility. https://www.quora.com/Science-is-a-belief-so-isn-t-it-a-religion-without-a-god

Why do the British have a mythology or “never surrendering” against the Nazis? It was they who declared war on Germany not the other way around.

That’s actually a rathe interesting question, and, that’s certainly the way Hitler and the Nazis saw it. They saw Churchill as a war-monger, and themselves as innocent victims of British Imperialism. The British position was that Hitler’s activities, while not a direct and immediate threat to the survival of Britain, because of the English channel, were a threat to the entire region, because Nazi expansionism could not be easily contained. So, whether they wanted to or not, the British felt compelled to get involved in this regional conflict. That’s what they mean by “never surrendering” — never permitting the Nazis to expand throughout Europe without Britain getting in their way about it. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-the-British-have-a-mythology-or-never-surrendering-against-the-Nazis-It-was-they-who-declared-war-on-Germany-not-the-other-way-around

What would be the fate of the war and Germany if Hitler's assassination was successful in 1944?

t was, actually, partially successful. Hitler was, actually, badly injured, much more badly than was admitted at the time. His left arm was rendered useless, he permanently lost his hearing in one ear, and his health was permanently shattered. True, he was still alive, and could still function to some extent. However, if the plotters had been more effective and less amateurish, they could probably have made the case that Hitler could no longer function, and was as good as dead. So, actually, it might not have mattered much at all if Hitler had actually been killed. The die was cast, and the war would likely have played out pretty much as it did. https://www.quora.com/What-would-be-the-fate-of-the-war-and-Germany-if-Hitlers-assassination-was-successful-in-1944

Did Homer know that he wrote the Iliad and Odyssey? Is there any record of him discussing his authorship while he was alive?

There is no record of Homer at all, other than the Iliad and the Odyssey. We don’t really know if he even existed. We don’t really know when he lived, exactly. He may be a mythological figure, or a composite figure. Some people think a man wrote the Iliad, and a woman wrote the Odyssey. https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Did-Homer-know-that-he-wrote-the-Iliad-and-Odyssey-Is-there-any-record-of-him-discussing-his-authorship-while-he-was-alive

Is there a god for everything in Egyptian mythology

Pretty much, yes. Traditional polytheism generally makes everything of any significance at all, a God. You can see this in modern Hinduism, and Zen Buddhism, too. Gods are everywhere. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-god-for-everything-in-Egyptian-mythology

Whatever happened to the term "incel"?

For a couple years now I've been noticing that whenever I made a comment vaguely critical of women or feminists on social media, I was described as a "creepy incel". Now the word "incel", I've been told, means "involuntary celibate". That is, people who desperately want a relationship, but, are incapable of one, because of psychological, physical or intellectual limitations. Now, I'm celibate, that's true, but, I believe it's totally voluntary at this stage. Such relationships as might be available to me simply aren't worth the trouble, from my point of view. So, I've been slightly puzzled as to why this term was applied to me, lately. I think it is used as a term of abuse, to suggest that, by criticizing women in any way, I was failing to be a proper member of society, because, after all, everyone knew women were perfect, and shouldn't be criticized at all, for anything, ever. That, effectively, our job as men was to submit to women in all things, something I wasn't particularly inclined to do, at all. But, lately, I've found that this term is scarcely applied to anyone, myself included, at all anymore, no matter what we might say about women. Am I correct about this? Has the term "incel" largely disappeared from the popular vocabulary, just in the last few months, or so? Why might this be? Is it related to the current American election, in which a noticeable gender gap has developed in polls between young men and young women? Presumably, young men are, as a group, getting slightly tired of having to grovel and the feet of women, and to acknowledge the superiority of women in all things, and are taking their views to the ballot box with them, and voting Republican, or, "anti-feminist"? Is this the case, perhaps? So, are all young men following my lead, and becoming "creepy incels", so the term no longer has any real meaning? Any thoughts?

The Russian diversion in Kharkiv is proceeding as planned.

These days, the western media is full of news articles praising the wonderful achievements of the Ukrainian military, with the help of the magnificent wonder weapons provided by the fabulous engineers and scientists of NATO countries. Why, the Russians were on the verge of taking Kharkiv, and, thanks to those NATO wonder weapons, why, the Ukrainians stopped them cold! Not only that, these NATO wonder weapons, built by NATO's fabulous engineers and scientists are pounding Russia and Crimea, so, the Russians will certainly have to sue for peace very soon, because, otherwise, they'll be wiped off the planet, and the Ukrainians will simply be able to walk into Moscow and Crimea, totally unopposed! Why, we could be talking about an entire Ukrainian Empire, stretching from the Baltics to the Pacific Ocean! President Zelensky is, very generously, offering the Russians peace talks. All they have to do is withdraw from all territories they currently occupy. Now, I believe there might be a few slight distortions in this particular picture being presented. First of all, the Russians were never actually trying to take Kharkiv, not with just 30,000 troops, which is all they actually put into the battle. They were trying to establish a buffer zone, they established a buffer zone, and they're keeping the buffer zone. Despite putting most of their rather few remaining troops into the area, the Ukrainians are unable to dislodge the Russians. However, these Ukrainian troop movements have made it rather easier for the Russians to advance in the East and the South, which, they are doing rather systematically now, and rather more easily than before. Russia is continuing to conquer and colonize Ukraine, slowly but surely, one town at a time, taking towns and territory on a weekly basis now. In Crimea, the Ukrainians are indeed firing off extremely expensive NATO rockets built by fabulous NATO scientists and engineers, however, they're doing minimal damage. We've heard almost weekly for years now, how the bridge to Crimea was no longer operational, however, the bridge to Crimea is still being regularly used, supplemented, of course, by ferries and boat traffic. We've heard almost weekly for years now, how the Russians had been driven out of the Black Sea, but, the Russians are still patrolling the Black Sea, and enforcing a blockade there. Russians are flocking to Crimea, they aren't fleeing it, as they are to Mariupol and Melitopol, and other areas in South Ukraine, because of the mild climate and Russian prosperity. Virtually all "partisan" activity has ceased in Russian controlled territory in the former Ukraine. Russians have colonized and absorbed it. Of course, there are the F-16's. We've heard for years now how this forty year old American air frame was going to transform the war. Actually, it hasn't done much, at all. Actually, most of these "wonder weapons" haven't done much, at all. That's because NATO scientists and engineers, although very expensive, haven't actually done much at all. So, what's really going on here? Well, last year, Ukraine attempted to stage some kind of a breakthrough in Russian held territory. They failed completely -- so completely, that the Americans temporarily cut off military assistance. What are the Ukrainians trying to do now, exactly? It looks like the bar is now being set pretty low for continuing aid -- minimal further Russians advances, and some slight Ukrainian gains. Problem is, even that very minimal goal seems almost unattainable, as Ukraine is out of manpower and the Ukrainian people themselves are refusing to fight. So, what's going to happen next? Russia will continue to slowly advance, Ukraine will continue to slowly retreat, the NATO weapons will prove effectively useless. Russia will continue to prosper, NATO will continue to wither. Putin has demanded all of southeastern Ukraine be surrendered formerly to Russia. Within a year or so, NATO and the Ukrainians will give it to him. And the rest of Ukraine will be, effectively, a Russian protectorate, under Russian control. The Kharkiv diversion will have succeeded brilliantly. Well done, Vladimir Putin!

Why didn’t the USSR fully annex Finland after defeating them in the Winter War?

Because they didn’t particularly want or need to annex all of Finland. They wanted to make Leningrad more defensible, so, they annexed territory providing a 100 mile buffer between Finland and Leningrad — previous to the war, Leningrad had been right on the Finnish border — and this why the Nazis were unable to conquer Leningrad during WWII. The Russians are very pragmatic, they aren’t bent on total world conquest, just security and prosperity for Russia. https://www.quora.com/Why-didn-t-the-USSR-fully-annex-Finland-after-defeating-them-in-the-Winter-War

How can someone like Adolf Hitler sleep at night with the knowledge that he was responsible for millions of deaths?

Actually, he didn’t sleep very well at night, once he started killing millions of people. He aged very quickly during WWII, and looked at least ten years older than his age by the end of it. At the beginning, he had been a very youthful and energetic looking man who could have passed for ten years younger than late forties. Even a tough and ruthless man like Hitler was brought low by doing so much damage. https://www.quora.com/How-can-someone-like-Adolf-Hitler-sleep-at-night-with-the-knowledge-that-he-was-responsible-for-millions-of-deaths

What is the reason behind Iceland having a lot of mythology? Is it related to the presence of Vikings in the country?

I guess the subtext of your question is, “Why does a nation with a population no larger than a small city — 300,000 people or so — have such a rich literary tradition?” And, I guess it’s related to their social isolation, way up in the North Atlantic, away from everybody else. So, traditions are maintained and reinforced, because there’s little distraction from anywhere else. I understand there are islands in the Aleutians which have been so isolated, that there are songs people sing that are quite unchanged from the end of the last Ice Age, ten thousand years ago! So, a similar principle obtains in Iceland, where their local culture breeds and reinforces a very rich tradition of myths, even though there aren’t many people there. No doubt, the Vikings brought there local culture there, and provided the fundamental basis for Icelandic mythology. But, the social isolation of Iceland created unique and rich elements that developed independently. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-reason-behind-Iceland-having-a-lot-of-mythology-Is-it-related-to-the-presence-of-Vikings-in-the-country?show_editor=True

There are no "wonder weapons"

Once more, we hear of "wonder weapons", from the NATO propaganda wizards. The NATO weapons are so magnificent, so effective, that, no matter how fast the Russian economy grows, no matter how willing their population is to fight, no matter how few soldiers the Ukrainians have, NATO cannot possibly lose. Does this sound familiar at all? Well, it should. It's a lot like the "game-changer" scenario we've been hearing for years in this war, how some new weapons system or other was so superior to anything the Russians had, that they couldn't possibly win. It was over. Our scientists and engineers had saved the day. It's also a lot like what the Nazis kept saying in WWII. No matter how great the industrial and overall conventional military superiority the Americans and the British had, the German superman and his "wonder weapons" would save the day, in the end. I wonder, do the British intelligence fools using this term "wonder weapons" even remember that that's exactly the same term that Hitler used in saying he could defeat Churchill, in WWII? Or, are the British deliberately taking a page out of the Nazi playbook in WWII, for some reason that eludes me? Maybe they think this kind of disinformation is the best they can actually do, under these circumstances? Have they actually concluded by this time that they cannot actually beat the Russians, so, the best they can do is prolong the conflict with systematic disinformation of this type, and hope to do as much damage as possible in the meantime, to the Russians? Maybe so. I've no doubt a limited amount of damage is being done by these extremely high-priced NATO missiles, however, it's not really that great a bang for the buck. NATO engineers and scientists don't work cheap, and, they aren't really "supermen", at all. Just overpriced, overhyped technicians. So, the overpriced stuff they're throwing at the Russians is more just a source of irritation, than anything else. As were those "wonder weapons" the V1 and V2 rockets, in WWII. Actually, I'm quite sure the V1 and V2 did far more damage than any of the NATO missiles are doing to Russia. The damage is hyped to the skies, but, we're just talking about a plane here, a tank there, an artillery station somewhere else, all destroyed by very, very expensive missiles. Of course the NATO engineers are very proud of their work, but, other than a lot of hype, rather modest damage seems to be being done. The main claim is that Kharkiv is now, "no longer in danger". It never was! Not from just 30,000 Russian troops, it's a city of 1.5 million for chrissakes!

Did the Romans conquer and replace the Etruscans?

Yes, more or less. The Etruscans had been the dominant power in most of Italy, and then the Romans came along, and defeated them and their allies, and took over. Then, of course, the Romans went on to take over most of Europe and much of Africa, as well as the Middle East. https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Did-the-Romans-conquer-and-replace-the-Etruscans

Why do people think that Nikola Tesla was a bad guy?

Nobody thinks Nicola Tesla was a bad guy. Everybody liked him, he never hurt a fly. He invented alternating current, the basis for all electrical energy generation and transmission today. Some people think he was bit of a space cadet, not a good enough businessman to fully develop most of his ideas. That was Thomas Edison’s view of him. But, even Edison didn’t think Tesla was a “bad guy”. Just impractical, most of the time, anyway. Brilliant, but, impractical. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-think-that-Nikola-Tesla-was-a-bad-guy

Hitler was a socialist. can you prove me wrong?

Possibly. However, Hitler certainly wasn’t a communist. Communism sweeps away all conventional social structures as it searches for totally new social constructs to optimize things. Hitler, like all fascists, clung to conventional social structures like Christianity, Capitalism, the conventional existing Nobility etc. in an effort to stabilize society. Certainly, Hitler encouraged Capitalists to make money, and there were massive disparities of wealth in Nazi Germany. However, he also exerted a great deal of social control over the economy and society through a centralized government power structure. Fascism does have some things in common with socialism, although, it tends to be somewhat less forward looking, and less inclined to change things. https://www.quora.com/Hitler-was-a-socialist-can-you-prove-me-wrong

Russia is advancing steadily in the South, as Ukraine throws its remaining troops into holding onto Kharkiv.

While, as per usual, NATO is bragging on its weapons systems, and describing how "rattled" Russia is, and is saying how, all Ukraine has to do is join NATO, and it would be "secure", and is touting the millions of Russian troops being killed on an hourly basis in Ukraine and Russia by its invincible missiles, Russia is continuing to take territory. Important territory. In particular, in just the last few weeks, Russia has just taken full control of both the towns of Robotyne and Staromaiorske, which it been fighting for, for almost a year, and which were the only two significant towns taken by Ukraine in its offensive last year. Remember the incredible noise that was made when Ukraine took these two towns last year? How they were now on the verge of cutting off Crimea from Russian supplies? How they would soon have all major roads and railroads in the region within artillery range, and the war would be over? Fact is, the "attack" against Kharkiv is just a diversion, and, it's proving a highly effective one. Russia is taking back important territory in the South, reinforcing its control in the region, as Zelensky is forced to divert his remaining troops to the North. It's interesting how little attention the media is paying to these advances in the South by Russia. Particularly given how much attention was paid to them when Ukraine took them! In addition, Russia is continuing to take territory and towns near Donetsk, the towns of Krasnohorivka and Neorhiivka now nearly under full Russian control as well. This territory in the South is critical to establishing full Russian control over Ukraine, since the northern territories near Russia can always be overrun by masses of well supplied Russian troops, whenever Russia sees fit. The fact that NATO and Zelensky are simply ignoring this fact, shows just how out of touch with reality they really are. While bragging on how NATO has "stopped" the "siege" of Kharkiv, and allowing far more important Ukrainian towns and territory in the South to be overrun at will by virtually unopposed Russian forces, NATO is allowing the war in Ukraine to tilt more and more overwhelmingly in favor of a dominant Russia, and guaranteeing that Ukrainian men will simply flee the country, and very possibly go over to the obviously winning side, Russia, rather than fight for the corrupt and incompetent NATO backed Ukrainian forces. We can see parallels to both the end of the Vietnam War, and the end of the Chinese Civil War, as Mao Zedong's triumphant, Soviet backed communists advanced on Beijing. Kiev is finished. Ukraine is Russia.

What would have happened if Alexander the Great had defeated the Spartans?

Alexander the Great did defeat the Spartans. Otherwise, he would never have gotten out of Greece, and gone on to defeat the entire Persian Empire. https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-would-have-happened-if-Alexander-the-Great-had-defeated-the-Spartans

Is Vladimir Putin gradually morphing, literally and physically, into Catherine the Great?

Is this just me? Or, is the resemblance between Catherine the Great and Vladimir Putin becoming more and more striking, as the years go by? https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/moscow-russia-dec-23-2016-president-552887833 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/russian-president-vladimir-putin-gestures-during-his-news-photo/1705615104?adppopup=true https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-empress-catherine-ii-of-russia-catherine-the-great-37470822.html?imageid=BA0012F1-3963-4D54-9118-77636409F787&p=56342&pn=1&searchId=9d74e6a7462d5bdf6c3ff303e40084c3&searchtype=0 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/russia-empress-catherine-ii-of-russia-canvas-zarin-news-photo/56462542?adppopup=true Is this intentional? In the old days, Putin looked like a tough, gangster/street fighter, appropriate for his KGB background. Now, he's more of jovial, cherubic caricature of his former self. He's kind of a reasonably fit and clean shaven Santa Claus, happy and giving, and benevolent. Now, I can see Putin emulating Catherine the Great, quite literally. After all, it was Catherine who fully conquered Ukraine, for Russia, precisely what our current friend Vladimir is doing himself, now. So, no doubt, he's seeing himself as a kind of latter day Catherine the Great. However, does that really require him to physically turn into Catherine herself, and imitate her facial expressions? Or, does this represent a deeper aspect to Putin's personality that is only coming out in old age, that he had successfully suppressed, in his earlier life? How far is Putin going to go with this transformation? Will we soon hear in Russia, that transsexuality is OK, after all?

What prevented civilizations before Rome from conquering Greece?

The Greeks themselves did. The Greek Phalanx was the most sophisticated military structure of the Age, and was virtually invincible, even when vastly outnumbered by less organized military forces. Also, Greek naval power was second to none, since the Greeks were a nation of merchants and pirates, to a large degree. Furthermore, the Greek territories weren’t particularly rich, they didn’t have much arable land, for example. There was no reason for empires to take much trouble to bother the Greeks in their native territories. And, if they did, as the Persians tried to, they lived to regret their error! https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-prevented-civilizations-before-Rome-from-conquering-Greece

What factors contributed to the power of the Greek Orthodox Church in the Ottoman Empire?

The Ottoman Empire was highly decentralized. Power was subcontracted to local groups, who were allowed to maintain their own religions, culture, language and laws to a very high degree, as long as they paid taxes to the central authority, and didn’t openly rebel against it. This allowed the Ottomans to assimilate a large number of very diverse groups of peoples under their loose administration. The Greek Orthodox Church had been a very powerful force for many centuries in many of the areas that came under Ottoman control, so, quite naturally, they were happy and willing to designate considerable authority to it, in order to maintain peace within their vast empire. In addition, unlike the Church of Rome, the Greek Orthodox Church had always been clearly subservient to the Byzantine Emperors, so, there was no particular problem with them submitting to the Ottoman Emperor, as they had submitted to the Byzantine Emperors previously. https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-factors-contributed-to-the-power-of-the-Greek-Orthodox-Church-in-the-Ottoman-Empire

Did Isaac Newton credit God for his discoveries and inventions?

Newton believed that God created everything, and that anything anyone discovered or invented was done according to principles determined by God, including himself, of course. Newton was an ordained minister of the Church, as was required for fellows of Cambridge University, and had taken Holy Orders. Isaac Newton wrote extensively on religious topics, but did not publish his writings in his lifetime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton https://www.quora.com/Did-Isaac-Newton-credit-God-for-his-discoveries-and-inventions

How do we know about ancient cultures and why do we refer to these as “civilisation” when the concept of “civil” is modern?

The resident of a city, in Latin, from ancient Rome, is a “civis”. Hence, the word “civil”, itself, dates from ancient times. The concept of “civil” is more or less the same as it was in ancient times — behavior suitable for a complex, urban society, in which law and social norms are required to regulate the behavior of “citizens”. We know about ancient cultures mainly, and especially, from ancient texts in Greek, Latin, Chinese, Egyptian hieroglyphics, and ancient Sumerian clay tablets. https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-about-ancient-cultures-and-why-do-we-refer-to-these-as-civilisation-when-the-concept-of-civil-is-modern

Why is long hair often associated with ancient times? Is short hair also considered ancient?

There’s a certain amount of technology involved in cutting hair, you know. Scissors and razors are technologies, and, they weren’t as perfected five thousand years ago as they are now. So, while no doubt it was possible to cut hair thousands of years ago, it would have been more difficult, less precise, and probably rather more painful than it is now. So, in general, people would have tended to let their hair grow longer before they attempted to cut it, I would suspect. Too much trouble. https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-is-long-hair-often-associated-with-ancient-times-Is-short-hair-also-considered-ancient

Atheists, imagine you're in a park with a Christian baby and a wild animal appears. The animal seems aggressive and will only back off if you convert to Christianity. Would you convert to save the baby from the wild animal?

Interesting hypothetical question, but, how could it possibly happen? How could I ever know that the wild animal wanted me to convert to Christianity? You see, this is the problem with most Christian arguments — it couldn’t possibly happen and it makes no sense whatsoever. https://www.quora.com/Atheists-imagine-youre-in-a-park-with-a-Christian-baby-and-a-wild-animal-appears-The-animal-seems-aggressive-and-will-only-back-off-if-you-convert-to-Christianity-Would-you-convert-to-save-the-baby-from-the-wild

What were the benefits for Russia in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact gave the Russians an opportunity to further build up their military, to move more factories east of the Urals, and out of the range of Nazi bombers, and to take more territory in the Baltics, in Poland, and in Finland, making it harder for the Nazis to take over most of the USSR. In particular, the thousands of miles of territory taken from Finland in the Russo-Finnish war, gave Leningrad a buffer zone, and probably was the reason the Nazis were unable to conquer Russia’s second most important city. Leningrad had previously been right on the Finnish border, and the Nazis could have taken it immediately. https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-benefits-for-Russia-in-the-Molotov-Ribbentrop-pact