Hurlshort

I am disappointed Cleveland didn't just smoke them and be done with it. Want to see these 'We The North' scumbags weep. Aw, gotta have a little bit of satisfaction in seeing a new team mixing it up against the Eastern king. It looked like the Cavs were going to coast in, now we've got potential upsets in both conferences.

Oh, like the Atlanteans? This is in line with how I teach about civilizations in the classroom. It references my state standards as well. http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/6.3/brown.html

I'd probably classify that as a more tribal society than a civilization.

We have loads of data that support religion and spirituality in early societies. Earlier I wrote that a civilization: So I suppose size does matter, although I think progress is the more important measure.

So if there is no evidence to support a lack of religion or spirituality in early societies, are we just supposed to take it on faith that they existed?

So what are the alternatives? I do like the idea that religion is more of a cultural glue than a foundation. That might be a more fitting analogy. But I have a hard time separating religion from the human condition before a certain time period. Actually I have a hard time saying "the human condition".

I'm fairly sure they're not. Mesh is full of **** more often than he isn't. Can you name a civilization that was built without a religious base? Absence of evidence can't be seen as evidence of absence, particular given that there are many parts of the world with no written records covering them for millennia. More than likely the godless blighters were long since smote by some righteous civilization who were offended that they weren't doing things right by the time recorded history came along. Speaking of records, I'd consider the ability to keep records a pretty basic building block of a civilization. Although it doesn't have to be written form, for example the quipu's of the Incas or the Griot's role in West Africa. The Soviet Union (and really any modern communist government) is partly defined by the absence of religion. But this is a modern idea, one that attempts to break away from the nature of early societies.

I don't think trying to nail down exactly what criteria are responsible for a bunch of people with a common cultural frame of reference to graduate to being "a civilization" (do tribes count? city-states? historical empires only? are we admitting cultures based on technological advancement? geographical area? organizational complexity in their system of governance? cultural achievements? some? all?) is pointless sophistry. I disagree.

Our best examples of isolated civilizations are going to be the ones in Central and South America. I do agree that it may be possible to find civilizations that developed religion to suit their needs, I'd assume most do that to an extent. It's tough for us to really go back to day 1 of a civilization. Rome wasn't built in a day.

No. Was the question relevant to the discussion at hand in any way, shape or form? It would explain why you seem more concerned with verbiage than the actual history. My next guess was you were president of the debate club. Extra credit points for GD. Carthage is a good one to examine. I'd throw in the Kingdom of the Vandals as well. Looking at civilizations that arose out of a rejection of another culture might be a great approach to the question.

Mesh made a very simple statement, and aluminium called it BS without giving any evidence as to why. Then he used some fancy words, asked some vague questions, and disappeared. How can you disagree that there hasn't ever been any great civilization without a founding religion, if you don't even have a definition yourself of what "civilization" and "religion" is? He probably has definitions for both, but asking what others understand by each is a pre-emptive measure to stop the inevitable goalpost shifting that is bound to happen down the road. In fact, it has already happened: the original claim is "no civilization exists that isn't based on a founding religion". But in just a few posts it has already changed to "no civilization exists or develops in a religious or spiritual vacuum", i.e. with this therefore because of this. What was the religion the Byzantine culture was based on? The polytheism-ancestor worship of the Roman kingdom? Christianity? Whatever the ancient Romans may have inherited from the Etruscans? Heh. First, I don't think it is moving the goalposts to have an evolving (or devolving, if you prefer) religious identity for each civilization. The impetus is on you or aluminum to show a civilization without a founding religion. I would say this is only one aspect of a religious foundation that appears throughout civilizations. When you look at the traits of a civilization, they are intertwined with the religion. Separating it out is a very modern concept, which we don't see until the spread of secularization.

So the strategy would essentially give China an even bigger edge in manufacturing. Great.

Nope. I mean, not even close. They had a native shamanistic religion, and then adopted all sorts of beliefs as they spread their empire. The most unique thing about them was how many different belief structures they embraced as they grew, instead of adopting one. But that speaks to their fairly fluid cultural identity during their century of dominance.

I just think the agnostic-religious dichotomy is a bit of a red herring here. What you need is a common frame of reference, and a certain level of anthropocentrism is pretty much unavoidable because in the absence of information to the contrary, it feels intuitive. Are you a philosophy major, by chance?

I'm not sure if I'm willing to bite into a big pedantic discussion on a lazy Sunday...but then again, I'm in no mood to grade papers. I typically use the word 'civilization' when referring to any group that has established an agricultural system that allows them to settle in one place. While nomadic or tribal groups can possess many characteristics of a civilization, the lack of a permanent settlement tends to stifle progress. It's not just the ability to grow crops, either, it is the ability to manipulate the natural environment. Religion can be a trickier one to define. But I believe Mesh was being fairly general in his use of the word, meaning any system of faith or worship would qualify. I don't recall any agnostic civilizations before the modern age.

I really developed a respect for wrestling after watching Tough Enough on MTV. It might not be a traditional sporting event, but they do some crazy work to reach the level they are performing at.

I'm fairly sure they're not. Mesh is full of **** more often than he isn't. Can you name a civilization that was built without a religious base?

Just because Adrian Brody looks like Cher, doesn't mean he's a woman.

I enjoyed Predators, not sure why it wasn't more warmly received.

I thought Beck brought up a good point that conservatives are scaring off these tech companies by behavior that is traditionally more reserved for liberals. It wasn't liberal mouthpieces telling Apple to crack their phone for the FBI. You look online and a bunch of the so-called "conservative" sites are calling for police to shoot BLM people, the government to deport all Muslims, and put Target out of business for bathroom policies. It's a hostile environment and doesn't represent smaller government or freedom. Look at a site like this: https://www.facebook.com/FreedomDailyNews/ They have a million likes. The stories are usually misleading and the comments are filled with hate. I'm know there are liberal equivalents, but they don't tend to breed nearly as much vitriol.

Nice work, our strawberries always got eaten by birds or animals before we could harvesy them.

Interesting little blog by Glenn Beck after his meeting with Facebook: https://medium.com/@glennbeck/what-disturbed-me-about-the-facebook-meeting-3bbe0b96b87f#.dh3w1jamk

It looks like a Park Ranger badge. Not that those are bad, but it is an odd choice for a sports team.

It kind of boggled my mind that Ross Perot managed to get nearly 19% of the vote, and then I started checking out all the 3rd party candidates of the past. I always remember Teddy Roosevelt and his 3rd party run, but there are a lot of interesting stories out there.

Considering how close all the recent elections have been, that would not be a very safe bet to make. The only way you are going to see either candidate get below 40% is if there is a legitimate 3rd party candidate, like when Ross Perot pulled 18% of the vote.