Quote:
He could just have easily meant, (and I for one, think he did) that no matter what primitive culture one chooses to study, if there are societal remnants of that particular tribe, to any reasonable degree, you will find...some sort of religious connection.
Actually, he was pretty clear on what he meant. I don't know if you read the pre-edited version of the post or not, but "studies have shown A" does in no way mean "if you should choose to study tribes, I believe you will find A".

Quote:
The accusation of liar is so easily thrown around here, it is almost a shame. But I guess it is ok, just as long as the forum is padded so as to accept it.
Being the accuser, I guess I'll take credit for this one. But you too, Steve, seem to have missed what I thought was a pretty straight-forward point of mine:

Do not present what you know not to be true, as truth.

I don't mind it when people make mistakes. If Druid had stopped to say "Oh, I could have sworn I had seen such a study, but I can't find it now" then that would have been basically okay (presuming it's true, but that's for his conscience, not mine). As it stands, he knew at the time of posting that he had never seen any study showing this at all. He made something up to prove his point. That's what's not okay. That's what makes it hard to argue with people - because those of us who take debating somewhat seriously try to actually counter these arguments, and it's damned near impossible if your source is your own imagination.

We've been around this block a few times now in this thread, and I really thought my point was easy enough to understand the first time. Druid didn't get it. It seems that you, Steve, don't get it either.

Don't make stuff up. Use what you actually know - or at least believe - to be true as arguments. Don't make them artificially stronger by adding "... as has been argued extensively by many nobel laureates..." just because it's fancy, although you know it's not true.

Sure is fun to see that THIS thread came alive again.