Why do people believe that Beowulf is fiction?

[Angrboda]

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.



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.

[Mister Agenda]

I guess an honest conversation in good faith was too much to ask. I'm about ready to dismiss anything you say a priori as mealy-mouthed weaseling.

I was being serious, and trying to have an honest conversation.  You can do as you like, but I think that your rule you applied is flawed and not based on good principle and reason. Mostly, because it has nothing to do with the thing in question and whether it actually occurred.

Really? Because it sounds like you're getting into the semantics of 'what's a dragon?' when you know we're talking about giant serpentine creatures that fly and 'what about parrots?' when you know we're talking about rabbits and donkeys carrying on cogent conversations or delivering divine messages. Or at least that's what you know if you're not profoundly ignorant of how human communication in English works. But I don't think you're that ignorant.

Frankly, your reply just sounds like more mealy-mouthed weaseling to justify the previous mealy-mouthed weaseling.

[RoadRunner79]

I was being serious, and trying to have an honest conversation.  You can do as you like, but I think that your rule you applied is flawed and not based on good principle and reason. Mostly, because it has nothing to do with the thing in question and whether it actually occurred.

Really? Because it sounds like you're getting into the semantics of 'what's a dragon?' when you know we're talking about giant serpentine creatures that fly and 'what about parrots?' when you know we're talking about rabbits and donkeys carrying on cogent conversations or delivering divine messages. Or at least that's what you know if you're not profoundly ignorant of how human communication in English works. But I don't think you're that ignorant.

Frankly, your reply just sounds like more mealy-mouthed weaseling to justify the previous mealy-mouthed weaseling.

Ok... I think you just want to call people names, too avoid honest discussion.   I suppose time will bare out which is correct.

[Mister Agenda]

Double post

---

Really? Because it sounds like you're getting into the semantics of 'what's a dragon?' when you know we're talking about giant serpentine creatures that fly and 'what about parrots?' when you know we're talking about rabbits and donkeys carrying on cogent conversations or delivering divine messages. Or at least that's what you know if you're not profoundly ignorant of how human communication in English works. But I don't think you're that ignorant.

Frankly, your reply just sounds like more mealy-mouthed weaseling to justify the previous mealy-mouthed weaseling.

Ok... I think you just want to call people names, too avoid honest discussion.   I suppose time will bare out which is correct.

Time has already told about how honest you want this discussion to be. We talk about mythological creatures and you pretend you don't get that. And then you accuse others of avoiding honest discussion. You're still weaseling.

Unless you want to go with 'I was honestly too stupid to understand what you really meant, Mister Agenda.'

[RoadRunner79]

Double post

---

Ok... I think you just want to call people names, too avoid honest discussion.   I suppose time will bare out which is correct.

Time has already told about how honest you want this discussion to be. We talk about mythological creatures and you pretend you don't get that. And then you accuse others of avoiding honest discussion. You're still weaseling.

Unless you want to go with 'I was honestly too stupid to understand what you really meant, Mister Agenda.'

I'm not trying to pretend or be dishonest about anything; you seem to not be able to or want to follow the conversation. Perhaps if you participated in the dialog, instead of jumping to conclusions and declaring people dishonest you would do better. In any case, if you don't want to respond to me on the subject fine, if you don't want to talk to me, then don't respond. I'm not going to entertain an attempt to attack my character, in order to avoid the topic however.

[Angrboda]

I'm not trying to pretend or be dishonest about anything...

Perhaps not, but the fact is you're a monumental hypocrite who repeatedly attempts to avoid honest discussion by accusing others of the same or similar.

[RoadRunner79]

I'm not trying to pretend or be dishonest about anything...

Perhaps not, but the fact is you're a monumental hypocrite who repeatedly attempts to avoid honest discussion by accusing others of the same or similar.

So lets get back to the discussion then!

[The Grand Nudger]

The one about all of the dragons and sea serpents you;ve seen?

[Mister Agenda]

Perhaps not, but the fact is you're a monumental hypocrite who repeatedly attempts to avoid honest discussion by accusing others of the same or similar.

So lets get back to the discussion then!

If that's what you want, maybe you should leave the thread so we can have it.

[Mystic]

They are right Road Runner, your post was a switch and bait.