The Pub - Discuss Anything

[Spike 12,049]

Let's evolve..

People should be allowed to believe in their own Religion. Religion should be seperated from state but it if people want to believe in it, it is their choice.

[Naked Mole Rat 437]

Don't know why you had to do that, Each to their own, Everyones entitled to an opinion.

It's not just a matter of opinion when outdated "theories" like creationism find their way into science classes and people use holy books to justify oppressing human right. Especially nowadays, religion has been not much more than hindrance to human development, and there's nothing wrong with saying we should put an end to it.

[Swedish House Mafia 508]

I hate these 'religious' arguments on the internet. NO one ever changes what they believe in because of what is posted on the internet. Ever. Religious people remain religious and Atheists remain Atheists. If anyone wants to do some debating then I recommend real life.

(No flame war intended)

[Term-X 7,891]

Religious people remain religious and Atheists remain Atheists.

^ Tbf though, We shouldn't even need the word 'atheism'. If people didn't invent ridiculous imaginary gods, rational people wouldn't have to deny them.

[Swedish House Mafia 508]

^ Tbf though, We shouldn't even need the word 'atheism'. If people didn't invent ridiculous imaginary gods, rational people wouldn't have to deny them.

Damn it, I have this question that I want to ask you but is so hard to put it in a question. Been trying to for the last 20 minutes lol. Will return once I crack this puzzle.

[Spike 12,049]

^ Tbf though, We shouldn't even need the word 'atheism'. If people didn't invent ridiculous imaginary gods, rational people wouldn't have to deny them.

Religion doe

I hate these 'religious' arguments on the internet. NO one ever changes what they believe in because of what is posted on the internet. Ever. Religious people remain religious and Atheists remain Atheists. If anyone wants to do some debating then I recommend real life.

(No flame war intended)

Religion doesn't need a God. Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism do not have deities. It is not a question of whether or not you are a Atheist or not.

In my opinion it's very arrogant for someone to claim there is no god without sufficient evidence. In that vein it is also arrogant to claim there is a god without sufficient evidence.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Is the concept of the film teeth real?

No. Well, yes. To some extent anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina_dentata

You guys, what do you think of my first assignment for uni? Submitted it a few days ago, yet to receive a mark for it. I'm hoping for something between Distinction to High Distinction (75-85%):

Was the Harappan Civilisation in the Indus Valley a state-level society like contemporary Mesopotamia and Egypt?

The Harappan Civilisation was a state-level society comparable to contemporary Mesopotamia and Egypt. State-level society can be defined as a complex society with a multi-layered or hierarchical government, as well as the presence of a ruling class, urbanised centres, non-agricultural specialists, literacy and taxation, wealth accumulation and trade. Since the Harappan’s satisfy the definition of ‘civilized’ as defined by Childe, they can be compared as an equal to contemporary state-level societies.

The presence of the ruling class in Harappa was crucial to the everyday running of the state. Since the Harappans did not utilise a monarchical political structure, it fell to the elite to manage the state. The presence of large buildings, compared to the uniform ‘suburban’ housing found in Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro indicates the rise and dominance of a ruling class. This can be directly compared with Mesopotamians and Egyptians, in both of which the ruling classes also found it appropriate to live apart from the general populace in larger buildings that indicated their status. Therefore, society and politics were stratified, as it can be derived from these findings that if the ruling classes saw fit to not live amongst the general population, then they would not have been given significant political rights either. The Harappan Civilisation can therefore be considered a state, despite the lack of what many scholars (Shaffer cited in Posserl, 1998) deem essential for consideration as a state- the presence of a king. Despite this, the sheer size of the cities and the comparatively healthy skeletal remains of Harappans from urban centres indicate that the society needed to have a complex structure of organisation or the peoples’ health would have declined and the general progress of the state would have been halted at the level of a chiefdom (Shaffer cited in Posserl, 1998); therefore the Harappans were comparable politically to Mesopotamia and Egypt.

The most defining characteristic of the Harappan civilisation is the presence of its highly urbanised cities. At the time, Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro were the largest cities on the planet based on both population and area, while the other centres also had populations above 10,000. This cannot be compared to Mesopotamia or Egypt, as neither of the two civilisations possessed cities that were anywhere near the sophistication, size and organisation of Harappan cities. The size of the cities facilitated the development of sanitation, with the Harappan sewage system being the first of its kind in the world (Service, 1975). Furthermore, the architectural style of the cities, which predominantly very uniform and with pre-set, finite limits, shows a degree of urban planning that had yet to have been achieved anywhere else in the world. It can be assumed that it was the ruling class, in conjunction with architects designed the cities, which in turn can lead to the idea that the ruling classes in each city were co-operative and met regularly to exchange ideas and to try and set up a unified government- clearly, with the cities, they had succeeded in creating a single, uniform style across the entire civilisation. Comparable cities in Mesopotamia and Egypt, for example, Memphis, were neither planned nor did they possess systems of sewage. Urbanisation on such a scale is indicative of a complex society, and the uniformity of them suggests that if there wasn’t centralized political organisation, then the ruling classes were still able to maintain consistency across the empire despite their apparent equal status and free reign to do as they pleased in their own territory of government. Service (1975) believes that the existence of cities and their highly organised nature indicates the presence of a ‘highly bureaucratized’ system of political governance, which can be contrasted with the very autocratic system of governance adopted by the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians.

The egalitarian nature of political and household life in the Indus Valley, however, did not stretch to financial affairs. Trade, wealth accumulation and taxation area also important indicators of the nature of a civilisation. The Harappan civilisation engaged in land based and maritime trade, and their trade networks were very widespread by contemporary standards. Maritime trade took Harappan artefacts as far as Egypt and even Crete, while trade with Mesopotamia has been documented via the discovery of Harappan artefacts in Mesopotamian cities (Bogucki, 1975). The existence of long distance and widespread trade is symptomatic of the presence of an elite who dominated financially through wealth accumulation, derived from trade profits. It can also be assumed that for the basic need of food, countryside Harappans’ would have had to have given up a tithe to a tradesman or perhaps a tax collector to ensure the survival of the cities. Another possibility with regards to taxation is that peasants were obliged to pay contributions of food to the ruling class and their representatives in exchange for the development of irrigation systems. There is little historiography on the tax system employed by the Harappans’ but it is almost certain that there was a system of taxation in order to feed the populations in the vast cities. As these are prerequisites for civilisation as defined by Childe (cited in Bogucki), the concept of the Harappan civilisation as a state is given further credibility.

In conclusion, there has been a long debate over the authenticity of the Harappan civilisations claim to be a state-level society. While the debate so far has produced a resounding ‘no’, it can solely be attributed to the Harappan language, which has yet to be deciphered and would reveal significant information on the nature of Harappan society, from political to cultural. Nevertheless, with what little evidence that is available to historians, it can be concluded that the Harappans’ were technological superiors to their contemporaries, had established literacy and widespread trade routes, and had designed cities meticulously. As they satisfy Childes definition of civilisation, the Harappan’s were a state-level society.

Bibliography

McNeill, J. & McNeill, W. “The Human Web”,(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2003, pp. 1‐55.

Bogucki, P. “Early States and Chiefdoms in the Shadow of States”, The Origins of Human Society Maldan, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1999, pp. 330‐337 and 359‐363.

Posserl, G. “Sociocultural Complexity without the State”, in Feinman, G. and Marcus, J. eds., Archaic States Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1998, pp. 261‐291.

Service, E. “The Origins of Civilization in the Indus River Valley”, Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1975), pp. 238‐246.

Excellent, I really enjoyed reading that. It was succinct and to-the-point; a lot of historical writing (including my own) is self-indulgent! All you need to do is rework the sentencing and grammar - the spelling is perfect, but I think you could do with utilising a semi-colon here and there just to put in an automatic breathing point for the reader, and you need to reconsider your use of the apostrophe throughout.

Apostrophes are ONLY used to indicate possession or ownership. If the apostrophe is before the 's' it denotes the singular, if after the 's' it indicates more than one owner.

Hence:

• (Singular): The woman has one son. She is the boy's mother.
  

• (Plural): The man has two sons. He is the boys' father.
  

But:

• The students studying History - this is a clause which does not need an apostrophe as it refers to the group and no possession is indicated.
  

In other words, do not use a possessive apostrophe to indicate a plural. It is unnecessary and WRONG.

[Swedish House Mafia 508]

^ Tbf though, We shouldn't even need the word 'atheism'. If people didn't invent ridiculous imaginary gods, rational people wouldn't have to deny them.

Ok. Would you deny the possibility of a God creating everything in an evolutionary way? Like how animals evolved and how humans went from apes to where we are now. That's what this God wanted. This God isn't in holy books, just a 'God' who created everything in an evolutionary way.

Sorry if question doesn't make sense.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

^ I have been researching into that, and read something along those lines actually. A common argument is that there has to be a starting point for the universe; that starting point is, in a way, God. Not a deity, but nevertheless the Creator. Interesting view.

[Naked Mole Rat 437]

Ok. Would you deny the possibility of a God creating everything in an evolutionary way? Like how animals evolved and how humans went from apes to where we are now. That's what this God wanted. This God isn't in holy books, just a 'God' who created everything in an evolutionary way.

Sorry if question doesn't make sense.

That idea is still pretty much a design hypothesis, which always arises from the assumption that nature has emotions like humans do, which it probably doesn't. Because of that, I'd say it's very, very, very, very unlikely, but nobody should rule that possibility out 100%.

[capriccioso 2,545]

Excellent, I really enjoyed reading that. It was succinct and to-the-point; a lot of historical writing (including my own) is self-indulgent! All you need to do is rework the sentencing and grammar - the spelling is perfect, but I think you could do with utilising a semi-colon here and there just to put in an automatic breathing point for the reader, and you need to reconsider your use of the apostrophe throughout.

Thanks for the praise and the advice

[Madmax 9,219]

Who talks religion in a pub?

[Blue Armour 4,168]

^ I have been researching into that, and read something along those lines actually. A common argument is that there has to be a starting point for the universe; that starting point is, in a way, God. Not a deity, but nevertheless the Creator. Interesting view.

Same.

Ever read about Baryon asymmetry? You might find it interesting : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

[Kojo 4,676]

Who talks religion in a pub?

I know lets stop this, and i'll buy us all a round.

[termninja 5,290]

I FUCKING LOVE YOU ALL AND I ESPECIALLY LOVE BEER! CHEERS!

awwwmm...yeah what I said still stands, but eerrmmmm I was drinking a bit last night

[BosnianLion 232]

Swedish, nice avatar. You really liked that comic didn't you?

[Amblève. 4,995]

So, I had time to do some more PS work. I don't think the pics are bad but nothing special either. Anyway, what do you think?

[FranklyFrank 103]

So, I had time to do some more PS work. I don't think the pics are bad but nothing special either. Anyway, what do you think?

I think the Fernando Torres one doesn't need the text but they are both brilliant good job.