Genesis and Other Creation Myths

[Agent327]

I said if myths have no truth then they're just poetic gibberish. That was a response to a discussion about whether or not there was any truth in myth. And Leo said:

He changed my "no truth" into his "truth" and used that straw man for his insults. And now here you are defending that nastiness with your own.

What part of 'truth has no single meaning' don't you understand exactly?

That apart, calling something you don't understand 'strawman' truly is ignorant. And that's not me 'being nasty', that's me pointing out a fact.

I see little evidence of you trying to learn something from other posters, but I do see misplaced use of 'strawman' and 'nastiness'. Perhaps you should go have a look in the mirror. (Figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally. Just to be sure.)

Oh, and there's no planet Nibiru. It's called Planet Nine for now. Whether you 'predicted' that or not is neither here nor there.

 

[Berzerker]

What part of 'truth has no single meaning' don't you understand exactly?

That apart, calling something you don't understand 'strawman' truly is ignorant. And that's not me 'being nasty', that's me pointing out a fact.

I see little evidence of you trying to learn something from other posters, but I do see misplaced use of 'strawman' and 'nastiness'. Perhaps you should go have a look in the mirror. (Figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally. Just to be sure.)

Oh, and there's no planet Nibiru. It's called Planet Nine for now. Whether you 'predicted' that or not is neither here nor there.

When not understanding what someone posts (nor apparently even trying to) and not being willing to be bothered to check who someone is actually talking to, I'm sure you can get a high post rate, but not one people would bother to check out individually.

Was that a complex enough sentence for you?

Apparently you are not even aware that the word truth doesn't have a single meaning. Yet you utter things like 'poetic jibberish'. Which in your case merely suggests you haven't a clue what the poetry you deem calling jibberish is actually about.

In short, your opinions are not based on any actual observation or thought process. They're just opinions. And curiously, opinions without any accompanying thought process or observation are indeed just that: jibberish.

That is irony.

I've bolded your straw men

Where did I say truth has only one meaning? I didn't even respond to that and here you are using it for more insults. Tell me, does a myth with no truth qualify as one of those meanings of truth?

I've already addressed your 2nd straw man, I didn't ask him who he was talking to, I asked who he was talking about - they're different people. Your 3rd straw man is the same as the first and regarding your 4th, I didn't say myth or poetry is gibberish, I said myth is just poetic gibberish if it has no truth.

That is not an indictment of poetry, gibberish refers to the myth's lack of value as a source of truth. Basically your posts are just a bunch of nasty comments surrounding straw men.

 

[Leoreth]

I pretty much agree. (And to be honest I'm arguing for the sake of it really. Although I do prefer to be 100% rigorous whenever I can.)

Good, I try to have that attitude as well

However, what are these observations about the past of which you speak?

Surely all our observations are about the present. Strictly speaking.

I can make no observations about last Tuesday, for instance. As it's irretrievable. (AFAIK).

But, I'm guessing, you're talking about looking into deep space which, I suppose, is looking at the Universe as it was millions of years ago - if it takes that long for the light to reach us. And yet - who can tell? - what's to suppose that the speed of light trillions of kilometres away is the same as it is here on Earth?

I meant that, and literally observations that have been made in the past. Rigorous science isn't that old but at least we can be fairly certain that not even miniscule changes have occurred in the last couple of centuries.

Seems to me that scientists make - and must make - some major assumptions (reasonable though these may be in the absence of evidence to the contrary) about the state of the Universe beyond the locality of Earth without much tangible evidence for them.

True. And those are the ones mostly up for debate (it's not really a question if the laws of physics are different next Tuesday). But so far everything we observe appears to be consistent with the current laws of physics. We can use them to adequately describe what we can observe about even the earliest stages of our universe's life. And even if those observations motivate an aspect of physics, we do confirm them by experiment "in the now" before they become accepted theory. See the Higgs Boson for a very recent example.

So not only did you butcher the quote you did choose for your straw man, but now you're telling me that wasn't even the right quote?

Ugh, I thought we had decided that I wasn't talking to you? Why are you so obsessed about that post, I didn't even remember I had made it until you brought it up again.

What's so funnysad about this is that this was actually the one time where I actually engaged with your posts. See what that has gotten me. Look, you made a post implying that any corpus of text needs to include some factual truth about the world to be said to contain any kind of truth, and appended a strong value judgment. I disagreed and stated that factual truth is not the only kind of truth, and objected to your reductive view on mythology and your dismissal of poetry in general.

On the other hand to make fun of you I don't need strawmen or really any particular quote. I would just gesture vaguely at the entirety of this thread. You can now return to your scheduled program about Mesopotamian deities.

 

[Agent327]

I've bolded your straw men

Where did I say truth has only one meaning? I didn't even respond to that and here you are using it for more insults. Tell me, does a myth with no truth qualify as one of those meanings of truth?

I've already addressed your 2nd straw man, I didn't ask him who he was talking to, I asked who he was talking about - they're different people. Your 3rd straw man is the same as the first and regarding your 4th, I didn't say myth or poetry is gibberish, I said myth is just poetic gibberish if it has no truth.

That is not an indictment of poetry, gibberish refers to the myth's lack of value as a source of truth. Basically your posts are just a bunch of nasty comments surrounding straw men.

I don't think you really know how an argument works. And thanks for demonstrating you have no clue what 'strawman' means. (Which is perfectly valid to use in an argument, by the way.)

But since you think pointing out facts is insulting, try to address this:

Look, you made a post implying that any corpus of text needs to include some factual truth about the world to be said to contain any kind of truth, and appended a strong value judgment. I disagreed and stated that factual truth is not the only kind of truth, and objected to your reductive view on mythology and your dismissal of poetry in general.

The same point as I made, but worded differently. (No insult, just pointing out some things.)

 

[Berzerker]

Ugh, I thought we had decided that I wasn't talking to you? Why are you so obsessed about that post, I didn't even remember I had made it until you brought it up again.

What's so funnysad about this is that this was actually the one time where I actually engaged with your posts. See what that has gotten me.

So the one time you actually engaged with my posts was to replace my quote with a straw man and follow it up with insults. Yeah, see what that got you? You got someone "obsessed" enough to call you out on it. I would have acknowledged my mistake by now if I did that to someone, you just double down.

Look, you made a post implying that any corpus of text needs to include some factual truth about the world to be said to contain any kind of truth

I said myth is poetic gibberish if it has no truth. You turned that into:

"Something can contain truth that is not scientific. That I have to point this out while going on about the scientific method all the time earlier in the thread is kind of ironic. Your outlook on things is very narrow."

You replaced "no truth" from my post with "something can contain truth" and used that for your insults. So I'll ask you too, does something with no truth qualify as truth? Can you provide the definition of truth to show how it means no truth? And I never even mentioned the scientific method but you got me going on about it all the time?

I disagreed and stated that factual truth is not the only kind of truth, and objected to your reductive view on mythology and your dismissal of poetry in general.

I wasn't dismissing poetry, I was dismissing myth as gibberish if it has no truth - being poetic doesn't make a myth gibberish, containing no truth makes it gibberish.

Your rebuttal is: myths have truth. Yeah, thats what I've been arguing throughout this thread. Where have you been? You spent most of the thread laughing at people who believe creation myths contain truth. I have never argued or said myths are not true or have no truth, you'll have to address your insults elsewhere.

On the other hand to make fun of you I don't need strawmen or really any particular quote. I would just gesture vaguely at the entirety of this thread. You can now return to your scheduled program about Mesopotamian deities.

But you still chose that particular quote for your straw man and insults. Go back to being vague, specificity requires more effort.

I don't think you really know how an argument works. And thanks for demonstrating you have no clue what 'strawman' means. (Which is perfectly valid to use in an argument, by the way.)

Straw man: a sham argument set up to be defeated. A logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down.

Perfectly valid?

But since you think pointing out facts is insulting, try to address this:

Your opinions are not facts. See above... You didn't answer my questions, how about addressing them?

Where did I say truth has only one meaning? Tell me, does a myth with no truth qualify as one of those meanings?

 

[Agent327]

Straw man: a sham argument set up to be defeated. A logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down.

Sounds like what you're doing. Inventing 'arguments' that aren't even there.

But here's the meaning in full: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Perfectly valid?

Aye. Read.

Your opinions are not facts. See above... You didn't answer my questions, how about addressing them?

I didn't voice any opinions. That seems to be your job.

Tell me, does a myth with no truth qualify as one of those meanings?

Flawed question. Because, as already pointed out repeatedly now, truth has no single meaning. You seem to assume that it does:

"Something can contain truth that is not scientific."

You quoted this yourself, but you don't seem to grasp what it means.

Part of arguing is trying to understand what someone is saying. This effort seems to be missing in your posts. You then suggesting Leoreth make an effort is beyond comprehension. He is. Perhaps you should follow the example instead of dismissing everything as 'strawmen' and 'insults'. My suggestion to reread Leoreth's text resulted in you simply repeating the same irrelevant humbug all over again. The idea was that you actually think about what is being said and then - if necessary - respond. This involves a thought process. Rapid posting kind of precludes that. We are not holding a debate, we are trying to have a discussion in written words. There's a difference. (But even in a debate there are rules.)

 

[Berzerker]

Sounds like what you're doing. Inventing 'arguments' that aren't even there.

Where have I changed somebody's arguments? Its possible, but I'd like the chance to defend myself. I consider the use of straw men unethical so I try to avoid them.

But here's the meaning in full: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Aye. Read.

I posted the definition, how is yours different?

Here's what wiki says:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition

I didn't read the entire article so you'll have to quote your link to show where it says straw men are perfectly valid. The definition doesn't support your opinion... oops, I mean fact.

I didn't voice any opinions. That seems to be your job.

Yes, I voice my opinions. I dont call them facts.

Opinion: a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing

So you haven't posted any beliefs, no judgements, and no thoughts...?

Flawed question. Because, as already pointed out repeatedly now, truth has no single meaning. You seem to assume that it does:

Which one of the definitions of truth mean "no truth"? I never said truth has one meaning, use quotes.

"Something can contain truth that is not scientific."

You quoted this yourself, but you don't seem to grasp what it means.

How does "no truth" become "something that contains truth"? And what are these truths that are not scientific? Did either of you bother to support that assertion? Nope.

Part of arguing is trying to understand what someone is saying. This effort seems to be missing in your posts. You then suggesting Leoreth make an effort is beyond comprehension. He is. Perhaps you should follow the example instead of dismissing everything as 'strawmen' and 'insults'. My suggestion to reread Leoreth's text resulted in you simply repeating the same irrelevant humbug all over again. The idea was that you actually think about what is being said and then - if necessary - respond. This involves a thought process. Rapid posting kind of precludes that. We are not holding a debate, we are trying to have a discussion in written words. There's a difference. (But even in a debate there are rules.)

He says he made one effort, and here it is:

Something can contain truth that is not scientific. That I have to point this out while going on about the scientific method all the time earlier in the thread is kind of ironic. Your outlook on things is very narrow.

Now, I dont know why he threw the scientific method in there, but I didn't say a truth must be scientific nor did I say truth has one meaning. These are sham arguments, straw men.

I said myth is gibberish if it has no truth. Telling me I'm wrong because a myth can have truth is changing what I said. He finished his only "effort" with insults, I think thats bush league. But thats just my opinion.

 

[Agent327]

Where have I changed somebody's arguments? Its possible, but I'd like the chance to defend myself. I consider the use of straw men unethical so I try to avoid them.

We'll get to that:

I posted the definition, how is yours different?

what wiki says

It says "informal fallacy". That's something else than a logical fallacy, as you said. A logical fallacy means the argument itself is unsound.

Opinion: a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing

So you haven't posted any beliefs, no judgements, and no thoughts...?

Way of thinking, again, is something else than "thoughts". (Informal fallacy, commonly known as strawman. You are inventing an argument that's not actually there by your personal interpretation of someone else's words. Perfectly valid - except, in your case, you're inventing a new argument that wasn't there to begin with.)

Which one of the definitions of truth mean "no truth"? I never said truth has one meaning, use quotes.

You did not say it, you implied it by claiming poetic myths have no truth. This, however, is simply not true - in any sense of the word.

How does "no truth" become "something that contains truth"? And what are these truths that are not scientific? Did either of you bother to support that assertion?

Again, you are misrepresenting someone else's argument to fit yours. Strawman. (And, by the way, Leoreth did explain it. But as usual you simply read over it in your hurry to counterargue.)

He says he made one effort, and here it is

Another strawman. My point was not about Leoreth making an effort, but the lack thereof in your argumentation.

Now, I dont know why he threw the scientific method in there, but I didn't say a truth must be scientific nor did I say truth has one meaning. These are sham arguments, straw men.

Yes, and they are yours.

I said myth is gibberish if it has no truth. Telling me I'm wrong because a myth can have truth is changing what I said. He finished his only "effort" with insults, I think thats bush league. But thats just my opinion.

Back to the single meaning of truth - which it doesn't have. Final strawman.

It seems you are either unconsciously or consciously missing other peoples' points, decide you must answer anyway and do so by turning them into strawmen in order to dismiss them. The only person not seeing through this seems to be you.

Which goes to my original point: you accuse other people of the use of strawmen, while ignoring the fact that the only person doing so is you. In fact, you haven't addressed a single point made by either Leoreth or me. Small wonder that this discussion isn't progressing anywhere: it revolves around your incomprehension of other peoples' arguments. Perhaps you should try addressing a point actually made (by the person who made it and addressed to you) instead of making up your own arguments about what people are saying as you go along. You might start by not reinterpreting everything anyone says, but simply trying to, calmly, read what someone is saying. And if someone is not even addressing you, there's no real reason to respond at all.

Coming back to "thoughts": if you've read the above carefully, you might note it doesn't actually contain opinions. It does contain certain observations about your argumentation style. So, it's perfectly possibly to share thoughts without having them clouded by opinions. Anyone can have an opinion. Analyzing texts doesn't require opinions, however.

 

[Leoreth]

So the one time you actually engaged with my posts was to replace my quote with a straw man and follow it up with insults. Yeah, see what that got you?

I do, that I should have left it at one time. I have no interest in talking about this. Please return to the topic of the thread, whatever that is.

 

[Berzerker]

It says "informal fallacy". That's something else than a logical fallacy, as you said. A logical fallacy means the argument itself is unsound.

Straw man: a logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

They both say a straw man misrepresents an opponent's argument. I said myth is poetic gibberish if it has no truth. Leo's rebuttal was myth can contain truth without being scientific. I never said otherwise, not that I know what a non-scientific truth is...

But its gotten worse, what I said became a dismissal of poetry and now you're accusing me of claiming poetic myths have no truth while lecturing me about comprehension etc. So where is this definition of truth that means no truth?

Way of thinking, again, is something else than "thoughts". (Informal fallacy, commonly known as strawman. You are inventing an argument that's not actually there by your personal interpretation of someone else's words. Perfectly valid - except, in your case, you're inventing a new argument that wasn't there to begin with.)

I didn't say a way of thinking about something was a thought, albeit I sure wouldn't want to be the person trying to argue thoughts are not a prerequisite for having a way of thinking about something.

Here's the definition again:

Opinion: a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing

What you think about a particular thing is a thought. So, you haven't voiced any opinions and you're standing by that? Jesus, I cant believe we're debating this. And you complain about a lack of progression?

You did not say it, you implied it by claiming poetic myths have no truth. This, however, is simply not true - in any sense of the word.

I never claimed poetic myths have no truth. I'm detecting a pattern, I find myself defending arguments I never made or "implied" rather than arguments I have made.

Again, you are misrepresenting someone else's argument to fit yours. Strawman. (And, by the way, Leoreth did explain it. But as usual you simply read over it in your hurry to counterargue.)

How did I misrepresent what Leo said? You're not backing up these alleged straw men.

Another strawman. My point was not about Leoreth making an effort, but the lack thereof in your argumentation.

Here was the point I was addressing: "You then suggesting Leoreth make an effort is beyond comprehension. He is."

I didn't suggest he make an effort, I questioned your assertion he made the effort. My proof? his own admission his effort was limited to the one time he threw insults at me for saying myth is gibberish if it has no truth.

Back to the single meaning of truth - which it doesn't have. Final strawman.

I never said truth has one meaning, all your strawmen struck out.

It seems you are either unconsciously or consciously missing other peoples' points, decide you must answer anyway and do so by turning them into strawmen in order to dismiss them. The only person not seeing through this seems to be you.

Which goes to my original point: you accuse other people of the use of strawmen, while ignoring the fact that the only person doing so is you. In fact, you haven't addressed a single point made by either Leoreth or me. Small wonder that this discussion isn't progressing anywhere: it revolves around your incomprehension of other peoples' arguments. Perhaps you should try addressing a point actually made (by the person who made it and addressed to you) instead of making up your own arguments about what people are saying as you go along. You might start by not reinterpreting everything anyone says, but simply trying to, calmly, read what someone is saying. And if someone is not even addressing you, there's no real reason to respond at all.

I didn't address you or Leo, you have that backwards too.

I do, that I should have left it at one time. I have no interest in talking about this. Please return to the topic of the thread, whatever that is.

That isn't the lesson... Dont insult others is the obvious one, but doing it after misrepresenting their argument is bush league.

 

[Agent327]

On we go:

Straw man: a logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

They both say a straw man misrepresents an opponent's argument. I said myth is poetic gibberish if it has no truth. Leo's rebuttal was myth can contain truth without being scientific. I never said otherwise, not that I know what a non-scientific truth is...

The latter may be the problem. Once again, truth has no single meaning. If you agree with that, why are you arguing about it?

But its gotten worse, what I said became a dismissal of poetry and now you're accusing me of claiming poetic myths have no truth while lecturing me about comprehension etc. So where is this definition of truth that means no truth?

I made no such claim. Strawman #1.

I didn't say a way of thinking about something was a thought, albeit I sure wouldn't want to be the person trying to argue thoughts are not a prerequisite for having a way of thinking about something.

A very confused sentence.

What you think about a particular thing is a thought. So, you haven't voiced any opinions and you're standing by that? Jesus, I cant believe we're debating this. And you complain about a lack of progression?

You seem to miss the distinction between a thought and an opinion. Strawman #2.

I never claimed poetic myths have no truth. I'm detecting a pattern, I find myself defending arguments I never made or "implied" rather than arguments I have made.

Repeating strawman #1. Interesting.

How did I misrepresent what Leo said? You're not backing up these alleged straw men.

No, I pointed them out point by point to you and here you are with strawman #3. Strawmen do not need "backing up".

Here was the point I was addressing: "You then suggesting Leoreth make an effort is beyond comprehension. He is" [...]

I didn't suggest he make an effort, I questioned your assertion he made the effort. My proof? his own admission his effort was limited to the one time he threw insults at me for saying myth is gibberish if it has no truth.

Strawman #4. And you did suggest Leoreth make the effort instead of you. Just read back your own post.

I never said truth has one meaning, all your strawmen struck out.

Strawman #5. Nobody said truth has one meaning, so why are you bringing this up?

I didn't address you or Leo, you have that backwards too.

This isn't even a strawman. but simply complete nonsense. Quoting a person (either Leoreth or me) is addressing a person, via quote. (Or rather it's addressing what someone says, which is not the same as addressing a person. One can address inerminable posts without ever addressing a single person.)

That isn't the lesson... Dont insult others is the obvious one, but doing it after misrepresenting their argument is bush league.

Strawman #6. You assume intention to insult. But all I did (as in the above) is point out your strawmen to you.

I'm getting the impression all your argument consist of strawmen. I hope that's not the case or - as Leoreth implied - arguing with you is a complete waste of time.

You are quoting 'strawman' in full, then proceed to do exactly what you are quoting. Have you ever tried arguing differently?

But seriously, do you now see how annoying crying strawman is?