Help with debating a 'dragon' guy

[Guardsman Bass]

Although this isn't strictly a one-on-one debate, over at the Unexplained Mysteries forum, I have been arguing with a guy who believes in dragons.

He makes a number of claims:

1. Intelligent, flying, reptilian creatures are mentioned worldwide in various ancient myths, and are talked about as if they were real creatures until the 17th century. There are numerous paintings and drawings of 'dragons' by ancient peoples.

2. Biblical angels and devils are actually dragons. You need to look at his exact claim to get the full deal, but essentially he is claiming that the scripture describing heavenly messengers as angels are mis-interpretations of what they actually are.

3. Dragons are supernatural creatures from a supernatural realm, probably messengers of God. Although he freely admits that there is no evidence, in the forms of bones, of these creatures, he believes that the 'unity' and 'similarity' among accounts of dragons worldwide in myth is enough that they probably exist.

My personal opinion is that he is playing a kind of shell game, by defining as dragons virtually any type of serpentine mythical beast, and by claiming that the dragons are very similar when, for example, Chinese dragons were large, serpentine beasts, while Egyptian 'winged serpents' were chimeras, snakes with the wings of a falcon, and the like. Still, is there any way to successfully argue with him?

[Ender]

Although this isn't strictly a one-on-one debate, over at the Unexplained Mysteries forum, I have been arguing with a guy who believes in dragons.

He makes a number of claims:

1. Intelligent, flying, reptilian creatures are mentioned worldwide in various ancient myths, and are talked about as if they were real creatures until the 17th century. There are numerous paintings and drawings of 'dragons' by ancient peoples.

This is true. The anchients were a superstitious lot.

2. Biblical angels and devils are actually dragons. You need to look at his exact claim to get the full deal, but essentially he is claiming that the scripture describing heavenly messengers as angels are mis-interpretations of what they actually are.

Since there is no such thing as angels or demons this does nothing to help his argument.

3. Dragons are supernatural creatures from a supernatural realm, probably messengers of God. Although he freely admits that there is no evidence, in the forms of bones, of these creatures, he believes that the 'unity' and 'similarity' among accounts of dragons worldwide in myth is enough that they probably exist.

Since there is no supernatureal realm or god, this is an interesting claim. Similarity of myth does not mean that it is true; I point to science fiction - there is almost nothing original in it, most of it is recycling concepts made up by the old 30's pulp writers. So the behavior of the technology is consistent, but that does not make it real.

My personal opinion is that he is playing a kind of shell game, by defining as dragons virtually any type of serpentine mythical beast, and by claiming that the dragons are very similar when, for example, Chinese dragons were large, serpentine beasts, while Egyptian 'winged serpents' were chimeras, snakes with the wings of a falcon, and the like. Still, is there any way to successfully argue with him?

If you can't beat this guy you have problems.

[Frank Hipper]

The similarity between dragons and other mythological animals around the world is over-emphasised up the yin-yang, and therefore accepted as fact by too many people.

Demand specifics on this point, demand he prove it to be conclusive.

Considering his "Mesengers from God" bit, I question his state of mind, and therefore wish you luck.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I don't know why he felt the need to make angels and demons into dragons, there's plenty of "other" beings in the bible (like behemoth) that fit the classical description of a dragon better.

[Darth Wong]

Although this isn't strictly a one-on-one debate, over at the Unexplained Mysteries forum, I have been arguing with a guy who believes in dragons.

He makes a number of claims:

1. Intelligent, flying, reptilian creatures are mentioned worldwide in various ancient myths, and are talked about as if they were real creatures until the 17th century. There are numerous paintings and drawings of 'dragons' by ancient peoples.

When will this "people imagined it, therefore it must be real" stupidity end?

My personal opinion is that he is playing a kind of shell game, by defining as dragons virtually any type of serpentine mythical beast, and by claiming that the dragons are very similar when, for example, Chinese dragons were large, serpentine beasts, while Egyptian 'winged serpents' were chimeras, snakes with the wings of a falcon, and the like. Still, is there any way to successfully argue with him?

Define "success". If "success" is showing others that he's an imbecile, that should be easy. Simply point out that he's engaging in a huge non sequitur by assuming that drawings of these mythical creatures equate to proof that they were once real. Just point out that he's set the bar absurdly low for proof.

On the other hand, if "success" is changing his mind, good luck. Anyone that fucking stupid is probably immune to argument.

[The Guid]

Surely the question is - where have they been since the 17th Century?

[Mr Bean]

Surely the question is - where have they been since the 17th Century?

On vaction, so long and thanks for all the cows.

[dragon]

He makes a number of claims:

1. Intelligent, flying, reptilian creatures are mentioned worldwide in various ancient myths, and are talked about as if they were real creatures until the 17th century. There are numerous paintings and drawings of 'dragons' by ancient peoples.

Hell the ancient egyptians made hieorgryphics of alien space craft, doesn't mean there real then.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... highlight=

[dragon]

I meant alien spacecraft not alienware.

[Zor]

A Large part of why Dragons are comon in my opinion is that Anchent Civilizations stumbled upon Dinosaur Bones while mining.

And yes, he's a Nutjob.

Zor

[Alan Bolte]

So, essentially he's saying anything supernatural that flies and/or has wings is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of some real winged creature, the 'true' dragon? Yes, that's obviously the simplest, obvious answer. It couldn't possibly be that anything bigger than a heron flying seemed pretty cool at the time.

[Lord Zentei]

A Large part of why Dragons are comon in my opinion is that Anchent Civilizations stumbled upon Dinosaur Bones while mining.

Or perhaps legends and myths simply "travel" gradually from culture to culture in the manner of all other human ideas.

[Solauren]

Tell him people being scared of big lizards does not make the ultimate expression of them, dragons, real.

And tell him to stop advertising when they died off. It's affecting my 'fresh dragon meat' selling business.

No one wants 3 - 4 hundred year old dragon beef

[Majin Gojira]

So why not go into selling Dragon Jerky?:lol:

[Rocker5150]

Doing some searching on dragons turns up a surprising amount of Christian/Bible/creationism sites....one mythology pushing another!

I have a book about dragons and it mentions a museum that has the bones St. George (I think) turned in as those of a dragon he had slain. Proof of their existance? Nope. The book goes on to say that they are actually from an alligator.



-Kevin

[Rye]

I don't know why he felt the need to make angels and demons into dragons, there's plenty of "other" beings in the bible (like behemoth) that fit the classical description of a dragon better.

The behemoth is more like a giant unkillable bull than a dragon. There are actual dragons in it like Leviathan, which are described more like garyados from pokémon than the ones from european lore.

Also, Zor is probably right about the dino bones starting dragon stuff, I've heard that before, along with a potential origin for the giants that are in lots of mythologies, too (nephilim in the bible, norse, greek, etc).

[Guardsman Bass]

Define "success". If "success" is showing others that he's an imbecile, that should be easy. Simply point out that he's engaging in a huge non sequitur by assuming that drawings of these mythical creatures equate to proof that they were once real. Just point out that he's set the bar absurdly low for proof.

This is what I've been trying to do. It seems to be working a bit, but it is still kind of difficult because he can practically bury you in mythological details - a pretty big red herring, yes, but still formidable.

[Guardsman Bass]

I don't know why he felt the need to make angels and demons into dragons, there's plenty of "other" beings in the bible (like behemoth) that fit the classical description of a dragon better.

Also, Zor is probably right about the dino bones starting dragon stuff, I've heard that before, along with a potential origin for the giants that are in lots of mythologies, too (nephilim in the bible, norse, greek, etc).

I've never heard of the dino bones, but I do know that the ancient Chinese found a lot of mammoth bones that ended up in the permafrost during the last Ice Age after the permafrost melted, and interpreted them as giants, or some kind of tunneling beast.

Anyways, I'm aiming for what I stated in my last post, but it may be difficult. The people on that board tend to be believers in the supernatural in general.

[Darth Wong]

Define "success". If "success" is showing others that he's an imbecile, that should be easy. Simply point out that he's engaging in a huge non sequitur by assuming that drawings of these mythical creatures equate to proof that they were once real. Just point out that he's set the bar absurdly low for proof.

This is what I've been trying to do. It seems to be working a bit, but it is still kind of difficult because he can practically bury you in mythological details - a pretty big red herring, yes, but still formidable.

Just remind him that if one example of a mythological creature doesn't prove it must have been real, then a hundred of them is just repetition of the same fallacy. Where is the physical evidence for dragons?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I don't know why he felt the need to make angels and demons into dragons, there's plenty of "other" beings in the bible (like behemoth) that fit the classical description of a dragon better.

The behemoth is more like a giant unkillable bull than a dragon. There are actual dragons in it like Leviathan, which are described more like garyados from pokémon than the ones from european lore.

Also, Zor is probably right about the dino bones starting dragon stuff, I've heard that before, along with a potential origin for the giants that are in lots of mythologies, too (nephilim in the bible, norse, greek, etc).

Well, Behemoth is described as having "a tail like a cedar" which would be a big, thick thing that even a giant bull wouldn't have.

[Guardsman Bass]

I don't know why he felt the need to make angels and demons into dragons, there's plenty of "other" beings in the bible (like behemoth) that fit the classical description of a dragon better.

The behemoth is more like a giant unkillable bull than a dragon. There are actual dragons in it like Leviathan, which are described more like garyados from pokémon than the ones from european lore.

Also, Zor is probably right about the dino bones starting dragon stuff, I've heard that before, along with a potential origin for the giants that are in lots of mythologies, too (nephilim in the bible, norse, greek, etc).

Well, Behemoth is described as having "a tail like a cedar" which would be a big, thick thing that even a giant bull wouldn't have.

I remember reading that that bit was actually a mistranslation on the part of the King James Version writers, 'tail' being a euphemism for 'penis.'

[Gil Hamilton]

I remember reading that that bit was actually a mistranslation on the part of the King James Version writers, 'tail' being a euphemism for 'penis.'

Goddamn! Hung like a cedar!

[Crossroads Inc.]

I remember reading that that bit was actually a mistranslation on the part of the King James Version writers, 'tail' being a euphemism for 'penis.'

Goddamn! Hung like a cedar!

Hrmmm, Hung like a Cedar? Something like something a Bull WOULD have

[Guardsman Bass]

I remember reading that that bit was actually a mistranslation on the part of the King James Version writers, 'tail' being a euphemism for 'penis.'

Goddamn! Hung like a cedar!

Hrmmm, Hung like a Cedar? Something like something a Bull WOULD have

It makes sense, since the Behemoth is a giant beast, for him to have a penis that is as "thick as a cedar, and full of vigor."

Back on my main point: I finally posted this:

DC, you have spoken quite a bit about dragons, and their supposed roles in mythology. What you have NOT done is provide us with a scrap of concrete proof beyond claims that similarities in mythology and the accounts of the ancients constitute proof that they exist, and even then, you have referred us to no website links, or books, that might show us where we could find information on your claims, beyond vagueness like 'type in "Piasa" in google.'.

I doubt it will convince him, but maybe it will convince some other people.

[Vendetta]

The most common candidates for the Behemoth are either an Elephant or a Hippopotamus.

The name may also have some connection to Bahamut, which was, in ancient babylonian myth, a giant fish on which the world rode. (the ancient babylonians not being sufficiently familiar with turtles to make informed mythological choices).

The combination of something large and aquatic reinforces the idea that they might be talking Hippopotamus.