Why do people believe that Beowulf is fiction?

[Cecelia]

We know that JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter as fiction but we don't know who wrote Beowulf so we don't know why they did it.

No we don't.

She just SAYS it's fiction, and you can't prove to me otherwise.  OBLIVIATE!

[EgoDeath]

I saw this movie when I was like... 16??? Can't remember, but it was terrible.

[Fake Messiah]

There are creationists who believe Beowulf is non-fiction and the hero fought dinosaurs.

Yeah creationists believe Beowulf really existed (just ask Dirch or GC or Alphamale) not just that but they are taught by their biology textbooks that Nessie is also real as well as some other cryptozoological/ mythical animals. Here's a page from creationist's textbook



Here are some articles covering it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ans...aad75ff72a

https://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/shockin...s_salpart/

https://www.alternet.org/story/155926/th...page=0%2C2

And it's all payed by taxpayers.

[ignoramus]

Why do people believe that Beowulf is fiction?

I know it's fiction because Beowulf doesn't spy on us when we play with ourselves
Only a true caring God would do that!... Because only a real God cares about what we do with and where we stick the sausage!

[The Grand Nudger]

That story;s all about where you should and shouldn;t stick the sausage.

[I_am_not_mafia]

There are creationists who believe Beowulf is non-fiction and the hero fought dinosaurs.

Yeah creationists believe Beowulf really existed (just ask Dirch or GC or Alphamale) not just that but they are taught by their biology textbooks that Nessie is also real as well as some other cryptozoological/ mythical animals. Here's a page from creationist's textbook

[snip]

And it's all payed by taxpayers.

This is really depressing to hear.

Deliberately lying for Jesus.

---

Really, I've seen dragons and sea serpents on the discovery channel and in science books.  

Not the flying fire breathing dragons of myth you haven't.

At least not in genuine science books. I've heard that the discovery channel's standards have dropped recently but I don't actually watch it.

I've also heard animals that can talk such as parrots, or through sign language such as Gorillas.  

Parrots don't understand what they are saying. They are learning to repeat patterns of sound that they are trained to repeat.

Gorillas can be taught limited sign language by humans but that's about it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gorillas can be taught limited sign language by humans but that's about it.

Explains why the tweets from the White House are often ... odd.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Gorillas can be taught limited sign language by humans but that's about it.

Explains why the tweets from the White House are often ... odd.

As much as I dislike Trump and recognise that he acts like a gorilla, it's only fair to point out that he is in fact an orangutan.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Explains why the tweets from the White House are often ... odd.

As much as I dislike Trump and recognise that he acts like a gorilla, it's only fair to point out that he is in fact an orangutan.

[RoadRunner79]

Really, I've seen dragons and sea serpents on the discovery channel and in science books.  

Not the flying fire breathing dragons of myth you haven't.

At least not in genuine science books. I've heard that the discovery channel's standards have dropped recently but I don't actually watch it.

I've also heard animals that can talk such as parrots, or through sign language such as Gorillas.  

Parrots don't understand what they are saying. They are learning to repeat patterns of sound that they are trained to repeat.

Gorillas can be taught limited sign language by humans but that's about it.

You are correct, I haven't seen flying fire breathing Dragons.   And I would agree, that Parrots cannot carry on much of a conversation, although they can learn to repeat simple things to communicate.  Similarly, Gorillas capability to communicate is limited from what I've seen.   However, I question the simplicity of such rules; given previously such as these.   They may be fine for children, but for thinking adults, the reasoning and principles I believe are sketchy (or perhaps it is just a left over from children's rules)    Things such as do not cross the street, or do not talk to strangers. 
While they may not be called dragons, there are some amazing and similar things within nature.  Animals that spit or expel an acid at attackers.   Bombardier Beetles mix chemicals to produce a near boiling spray as a defense.   Mimic Octopus do some amazing things, changing color, changing shape, and imitating other animals with uncanny accuracy.  It seems difficult to dismiss by any principle or reason a story, because it contains a fire breathing creature.   It appears more like saying that "I don't believe in fire breathing dragons, so I don't believe the story"  but that is not saying much, if it is more based on a rule for children; rather than reason and principals of thinking adults. 
Another problem with such simple rules, is that there can be misunderstandings.   Such as my previously mentioning of dragons, some might imply fire breathing and flying lizards/serpents  when that is not what I intended at all.  Or they might have something else in mind when speaking of talking animal, than I do.  Given this, I think that we should allow for the principle of Charity when evaluating a story.   Not to be so quick to call someone a liar or to claim that something is fiction based on what could be a misunderstanding on our part.
Lastly one might cite experience as a reason to dismiss such things.  However I would question that as well.  I would make the distinction here, between contradicting our experience, and something which does not fit with one's personal experience.  In the first instance, if it is necessary to choose, between two opposing, then the one which is better supported should be kept (although we do have to examine and not just dismiss out of hand to know that it is better supported).  The latter just means that we may have to accept something new, perhaps change our view, but don't have to get rid of well established experience.   Because something doesn't fit within our worldview or experience, it doesn't follow that it is a work of fiction or a lie.  I don't think that we can learn, and grow, I think that science is weak, if we stick to the rules of children, rather than following evidence and reason.  Too many times, I've heard scholars and laymen alike declare that something doesn't exist or something cannot be done, because it falls outside of our current subjective experience, and later they have to eat crow.