Learn how to diferenciate between MYTH and LEGEND

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I'm on @Trailblazer's side on this one (her original refutation, not this one as it relies on her reading of Genesis, not the creationists). I don't understand your logic here. Maybe we should dissect the claim to come to a conclusion. It all started way back when you said:

You make a claim about creationists making a claim. Your claim would be true if creationists really made that claim. Their claim would be:
"God is a liar."
Do we have evidence of creationists saying that? No.
Can we infer that? And here comes your logical error: You say that the evidence against a flood refutes the Noah story. But you see the world from your view (as did @Trailblazer when she said she doesn't believe the Flood story is from god). For the creationists to be saying that god is a liar, they would have to accept the evidence. But they don't. In their world view there is evidence for a global flood and no credible evidence against it. Thus, no claim of lying. Or more formally:
1. God says (in the Bible) there was a global flood. 2. We have evidence that there was a global flood. C: God told the truth.
Which makes your claim false.

No, once again I am saying that they are calling God a liar, though they do not understand this.

And as a refutation of your counter example I need to remind you that creationists do not understand the concept of evidence in this context. So their claim that they have evidence is of no value.

Let's go over the main points. For simplicity I am just using the Noah's Ark myth since that is easier to understand than the refutation of the Adam and Eve myth.

1. All of the reliable evidence tells us that that event never happened.

2. For that event to happen God would have had to have planted all sorts of false evidence. That is a form of lying.

3. Creationists say that the God really did that.

4. Therefore creationists are claiming that God planted false evidence which is a form of lying. In short creationists are claiming that God is a liar.

Do you disagree with any of those steps?

 

[Heyo]

No, once again I am saying that they are calling God a liar, though they do not understand this.

And as a refutation of your counter example I need to remind you that creationists do not understand the concept of evidence in this context. So their claim that they have evidence is of no value.

Let's go over the main points. For simplicity I am just using the Noah's Ark myth since that is easier to understand than the refutation of the Adam and Eve myth.

1. All of the reliable evidence tells us that that event never happened.

2. For that event to happen God would have had to have planted all sorts of false evidence. That is a form of lying.

3. Creationists say that the God really did that.

4. Therefore creationists are claiming that God planted false evidence which is a form of lying. In short creationists are claiming that God is a liar.

Do you disagree with any of those steps?

2 and 3. It is exactly the same as I criticised before. You fail to switch to the creationists viewpoint when you try to understand their claim. The veracity of their claim or their failure to understand evidence is of no relevance when you try to be "in their shoes". And you need to switch perspective because you are making a claim about what a creationists claims.
In short, you are building a straw man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

2 and 3. It is exactly the same as I criticised before. You fail to switch to the creationists viewpoint when you try to understand their claim. The veracity of their claim or their failure to understand evidence is of no relevance when you try to be "in their shoes". And you need to switch perspective because you are making a claim about what a creationists claims.
In short, you are building a straw man.

How so. Do you disagree with 2?

 

[Heyo]

How so. Do you disagree with 2?

No. I disagree with that being a creationist's position. I.e. the combination of 2 and 3. A creationist doesn't agree with 2 and thus you can't claim 3.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, I did research the wedge document and cdesign propentsists. What I found was that there was a deliberate change of the word "creationism" to more palatable terms such as intelligent design. I wouldn't call this lying -- I would call it marketing.

I did not run across anything to indicate that these people at the Creation Institute don't actually believe what they say they believe.

Sure. But both those points DO demonstrate that they know very well that their religious beliefs aren't scientific yet they do their outmost best to make it look as such while knowing it isn't.

I can't look inside their heads, so I couldn't say if there aren't any there that don't actually believe what they claim to believe.
But as said, it does demonstrate that they KNOW their beliefs (wheter they actually hold them or not) are not scientific, yet have no issue at all using dishonest tactics to try and make them look that way AND sneak their bible into science classes in schools.

So "honesty" certainly is not a quality you can pin on their heads.

 

[Heyo]

No, once again I am saying that they are calling God a liar, though they do not understand this.

And as a refutation of your counter example I need to remind you that creationists do not understand the concept of evidence in this context. So their claim that they have evidence is of no value.

Let's go over the main points. For simplicity I am just using the Noah's Ark myth since that is easier to understand than the refutation of the Adam and Eve myth.

1. All of the reliable evidence tells us that that event never happened.

2. For that event to happen God would have had to have planted all sorts of false evidence. That is a form of lying.

3. Creationists say that the God really did that.

4. Therefore creationists are claiming that God planted false evidence which is a form of lying. In short creationists are claiming that God is a liar.

Do you disagree with any of those steps?

Maybe a concrete example would put it best. Something that mirrors your thought.

I claim that you claim that you don't understand logic. That fact that you think you do doesn't matter as you objectively don't understand it.

That's how your logic works when I mirror it to you. Do you agree that you said you don't understand logic?

 

[PureX]

Not just erased it.... It would rather be: erased it AND rearranged everything to make it look as if it never happened.
Which would literally be "planting false evidence".

Sure, once you allow for magic then "anything is possible".
Nevertheless at that point, we are still dealing with a deceptive lying god.

Only if you assume you deserve to have 'the evidence'. What you forget is that you have no idea why you exist at all. So you can't really say what information God should let you have and what not. Maybe your not knowing the whole truth of things is an important aspect of why you exist as a human.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe a concrete example would put it best. Something that mirrors your thought.

I claim that you claim that you don't understand logic. That fact that you think you do doesn't matter as you objectively don't understand it.

That's how your logic works when I mirror it to you. Do you agree that you said you don't understand logic?

That is a bit of a strawman. I did try to lay out the argument more clearly. I am trying to go over it with you right now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I disagree with that being a creationist's position. I.e. the combination of 2 and 3. A creationist doesn't agree with 2 and thus you can't claim 3.

I never said that was the creationist's position. Why would it have to be? You seem to be forgetting that I very often add the qualifier that creationists do not know how they are calling God a liar.

You should not even care about the position that creationists hold aside from their belief in a global flood.

Let me clarify number 3 for you:

3. Creationists by saying that God flooded the Earth are in effect claiming that God planted false evidence.


They do not have to admit that God planted false evidence, though I have even some do that, their belief implies that God planted false evidence.

 

[Heyo]

That is a bit of a strawman. I did try to lay out the argument more clearly. I am trying to go over it with you right now.

Of course it is, that was the goal.
Now try to imagine you'd say to a creationist "you claim god is a liar". Would they respond in a similar way?

 

[sayak83]

A useful exercise would be to compare biblical stories with stories from books that Hindus consider sacred, or with Greek epic stories.

Most likely you would realize the differences between what is legend and what is myth.

In the sense that Hindu stories are more historical than those of the Bible? You do know that Hindu sacred books are replete with references to real historically established dynasties as well like the Mauryas, the Nanda, the Sunga dynasty etc.? Or the Kuru Panchala kings are well correlated with the corded ware culture of North Indian iron age. Etc.? Or that the Vedas are considered the oldest extant example of Indo-European language precisely because it's renditions have not changed over the last 3000 years?
Oh yes.. let's compare the historicity of the Bible with the Hindu texts.....

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, once again I am saying that they are calling God a liar, though they do not understand this.

I'm following you on this--you are making perfect sense. I still remember way back when I was a creationist, and first heard this argument, and how shocking it was to me. I am not really sure why some people, such as myself, are able to hear it, and others are not.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sure. But both those points DO demonstrate that they know very well that their religious beliefs aren't scientific yet they do their outmost best to make it look as such while knowing it isn't.

I think you are seriously underestimating the human capacity to rationalize. It has been my experience in life that human beings notoriously cling on to their ideas as true in the face of evidence to the contrary. I believe there is even a name for the phenomena, but it slips me at the moment. In such cases, you can make a great argument for self-deception. But you really can't make a good argument for outright lying. IOW, yes, despite ALL of the evidence against creationism, they FULLY are convinced in their minds that:
1. Genesis 1 is historical
2. That they are the ones being the "true" scientists.

Anyhow, keep up the good work. Not every person is incapable of hearing good arguments. I used to be a firmly convinced creationist, and was able to hear the evidence, and change my views. So do it for all the lurkers out there who can hear what you have to say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it is, that was the goal.
Now try to imagine you'd say to a creationist "you claim god is a liar". Would they respond in a similar way?

You are forgetting that at least the first time a qualifier is given. That makes a big difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the sense that Hindu stories are more historical than those of the Bible? You do know that Hindu sacred books are replete with references to real historically established dynasties as well like the Mauryas, the Nanda, the Sunga dynasty etc.? Or the Kuru Panchala kings are well correlated with the corded ware culture of North Indian iron age. Etc.? Or that the Vedas are considered the oldest extant example of Indo-European language precisely because it's renditions have not changed over the last 3000 years?
Oh yes.. let's compare the historicity of the Bible with the Hindu texts.....

Unfortunately they "know" that the Bible is the oldest book because the Bible says that it is.

 

[Heyo]

I never said that was the creationist's position. Why would it have to be? You seem to be forgetting that I very often add the qualifier that creationists do not know how they are calling God a liar.

You should not even care about the position that creationists hold aside from their belief in a global flood.

Let me clarify number 3 for you:

3. Creationists by saying that God flooded the Earth are in effect claiming that God planted false evidence.


They do not have to admit that God planted false evidence, though I have even some do that, their belief implies that God planted false evidence.

We're getting closer. Let me mirror that new statement to see if we are already there:

You, by stating and defending your claim, are in effect admitting that you don't understand logic.

Did I state your position correctly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We're getting closer. Let me mirror that new statement to see if we are already there:

You, by stating and defending your claim, are in effect admitting that you don't understand logic.

Did I state your position correctly?

No. It is still a very poor strawman. I give up on this. It should not be that hard of a concept to understand.

 

[Trailblazer]

Unfortunately they "know" that the Bible is the oldest book because the Bible says that it is.

I wanted to give that a Funny, but I did not want to get in trouble with the staff.
It is Funny because it is so illogical, but sadly, Christians cannot understand WHY it is illogical.

 

[al_berk]

MYTH and LEGEND are not the same.

Atheists use the word "myth" to insult religious beliefs. Most of the time they don't use properly that term because they are ignorant of what a myth is.

The main differences between myth and legend are determined by the inclusion of a specific timeframe and verifiable historical information within the story. Legends can be verified as true stories to the extent that knowledge of the historical facts increases over time. For example, some biblical characters and events were considered legends until archaeological documents were discovered that confirmed them as historical.

Before calling "myth" any Biblical story, learn the truth about the information it includes; do not "speak from the liver" (only driven by animal emotions).

There's undoubtedly an overlap between the two terms, and most people use both interchangeably and loosely anyway.
I differentiate them by their purpose: a myth is a fiction that explains a phenomenon by using usually supernatural out-of-this-world characters, and a legend is a fable aimed at glorifying a person (or conveying morals, usually about one's ancestors.

In the Hebrew Bible, the Creation is definitely a myth - It is a fictional story that explains the origin of the world., why men work and women suffer in childbirth, why humans hate snakes, who was the first human, who invented plowing or musical instruments, etc. The Tower of Babel is also a myth that attempts to explain languages. The flood, on the other hand, was probably a legend about a local flood that grew into a worldwide disaster. It doesn't explain any phenomenon and the rainbow was added later.

The stories of Abraham and his descendants including the Exodus are generally called "an origin myth", but it is basically a set of unrelated legends aimed to glorify proto-Judeans. As such, the atheists don't really care if King David, King Solomon, Samuel, Moses, Abraham, or the 12 tribes were historical figures - all we need to know is that the stories about them are exaggerated "politicized" fables.

 

[Trailblazer]

There's undoubtedly an overlap between the two terms, and most people use both interchangeably and loosely anyway.
I differentiate them by their purpose: a myth is a fiction that explains a phenomenon by using usually supernatural out-of-this-world characters, and a legend is a fable aimed at glorifying a person (or conveying morals, usually about one's ancestors.

In the Hebrew Bible, the Creation is definitely a myth - It is a fictional story that explains the origin of the world., why men work and women suffer in childbirth, why humans hate snakes, who was the first human, who invented plowing or musical instruments, etc. The Tower of Babel is also a myth that attempts to explain languages. The flood, on the other hand, was probably a legend about a local flood that grew into a worldwide disaster. It doesn't explain any phenomenon and the rainbow was added later.

The stories of Abraham and his descendants including the Exodus are generally called "an origin myth", but it is basically a set of unrelated legends aimed to glorify proto-Judeans. As such, the atheists don't really care if King David, King Solomon, Samuel, Moses, Abraham, or the 12 tribes were historical figures - all we need to know is that the stories about them are exaggerated "politicized" fables.

Thanks. That was a really good differentiation between a myth and a legend.