Hurlshort

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.

Youtube channels are a young person's game. Most of us old farts are too busy rewinding our cassettes.

Sharks are looking pretty good. I'm going to try not to get too excited, but they've controlled the pace in all 3 games.

Hmm, reminds me of what the sequel to Prey was supposed to be.

Perhaps he has more than one channel, but the name of this one is 'Cinemassacre'. If you look at his videos, many of them are titled "The Angry Video Game Nerd". Cinemassacre would be his account name. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2B009153AC977F90 I guess you could call it the name of his video series.

I believe Angry Video Game Nerd is the name of his channel.

Oh it's not that I feel it is untrue, it is that you have conflicting polls all over the place. The folly is trying to lump all Native americans into one group in the first place, it is an incredibly diverse population. It also is telling how the questions are asked. If you ask "Is it an important issue?" it is pretty easy to assume most people will say "not really." But if you ask if they like the name, you may get very different results.

Heh, always a good reminder of the Mark Twain quote:

Oakland is the new hotbed. I keep meaning to get up to Jack London Square, I hear it is the hip place to be.