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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
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".


Nonsense. First of all, no one knows what a speaker, or as in this case, a writer meant...as well as the actual writer. Everything else, and I mean everything else that people feel as a result from reading, are merely impressions. Now those impressions may in fact be reality, but again, that depends on what the actual author meant, not on what other people try and construe he meant.

Now it's equally true things can be misunderstood and often it is a direct result of a failure to fully explain ourselves to whomever we are speaking to. It happens with me, you and everyone else in this crazed world. Can you say it doesn't? Honestly?

Now, what if we bring up our impression to the speaker or writer? Then, don't we owe it to the author, as a gesture of good-will and just plain ole courtesy, to allow
the speaker/author to clarify by explaining him/herself? I mean, has disdain for fellow human beings gotten so raunchy, that we can allow simple clarifications...anymore? That is something to be proud of...isn't it?

By the way, his clarification was pretty clear.

"It would seem to be beyond the possibility of any study made to encompass the entire scope of the primitive religions, and whose tribe they individually ruled.

I spoke not knowing of any specific study I can direct you to."


Now, every single study of ancient civilizations, that I have ever seen...shows some kind of relgion within the society. Now granted, we can dig in a cave, find a mess of bones, and nothing religiousthen suggest, "Perhaps these had no religion?" But...that is not what Druid was saying. He was talking about tribal studies. Period. Not a study, but studies.

The only legitimate way to falsify his claim, is to show him a tribe that did not have any sort of religion. Can you do that, because as it stands, he is correct, I believe.

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
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.


There are many things presented on this board, that are less than an actual "truism." The opinion that Druid expressed was an honest one, even if you don't agree. However, because you don't agree and suggest he is misleading the board, then you owe us all, not just your friends, some solid reasoning beyond your effort to squabble semantics.

Quote:
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.


Since when must he speak word for word the way you want him to? And...then even if he does, it is basically ok" Isn't there some gall pitched in there?

Druid goes against the grain here, obviously. But he also tries very hard to be courteous, if not just plain polite. Not that he is perfect in any sense, but he does show heart and that goes a long way beyond many who post here, unfortunately. It's a pity, he gets absolutely no credit for trying to agree or disagree (he does both...you know?) in an intelligent and heartfelt way. Instead, he is bombasted for the slightest things.

Quote:
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.


Caelia? I see your opinion. I also disagree with it for all the above reasons. Please don't flatter yourself by trying to petty me, and pretend that what you write...is somehow beyond my grasp. Perhaps, what Druid wrote was beyond your own? No?:eyes

Steve