Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Debate-Bot

Dragons, myth and not universal gods

172 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mattshark
No it doen't. NO large constrictor swims in salt water oceans as pliny describes, but the ketos dragons, with their long periscoping necks in the air were believed to. I thought you said you were a biologist?

Yes it does, you quote does not say keto's (nor does the actually quote not the version you copied and pasted with out reference. I mentions nothing of any long necks either.

Tufts University: Natural History - Pliny.]

If you are going to misrepresent a quote at least source it. I will put the site you got it from this time.

Have the same quote as you DC in the exact same fashion.

No excuse for plagiarism on a subject you claim to be so clued up on.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Undeadskeptic
I couldn't agree more, DC has no idea of the basic facts surrounding mythology that he claims to be expert in and thinks that his preconceived ideas and speculations are a match for posted evidence. They aren't and Lil Gremlin quite rightly ripped him to pieces

good luck with your book DC you'll need it, any publishers option it yet ?

:tu:

Of course, publishers are swarming on a book about alien created bio-machine Dragons teaching humans how to brew beer authored by someone with no credit on his name in any area of Biology, History or Archeaology.

LOL!

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archosaur
Of course, publishers are swarming on a book about alien created bio-machine Dragons teaching humans how to brew beer authored by someone with no credit on his name in any area of Biology, History or Archeaology.

LOL!

:lol:

I don't think DC said that dragons taught mankind how to brew beer, just that they were fond of beer (after all, we are talking about an intellegent species).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Come on folks lets have less of the ad hominem remarks, and that applies to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
Æthiopia produces dragons, not so large as those of India, but still, twenty cubits in length . . . We are told that on those coasts four or five [dragons] are found twisted and interlaced together like so many osiers in a hurdle, and thus setting sail, with their heads erect, they are borne along upon the waves, to find better sources of nourishment in Arabia. [book 8, ch 13]

Source

By now you should have seen numerous ancient depictions of long necked reptilian 'sea dragons' on this thread, creatures which look surprisingly like the sea and lake monsters seen by hundreds of reliable people (including scientists) in modern times.

That refers to snakes as mattshark has pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
From the onset I stated that attributes of serpents and Dragons have been intermeshed, and this is echoed in the Wikipedia article and by many other sources, and you know this. This is no better illustrated than in Greek/Hellenistic culture where either intelligent, bearded serpents that served the gods (or became the gods, as we seen in numerous legends), or winged and footed creatures by the identical name Drakon as we clearly see by the Hellenistic era.

no, you believe that ancient man worshiped quadrupedal, winged, giant reptiles...but have not provided any proof of them.

You say they were in close contact with bronze age advanced cultures......but cannot explain why the Greek ketos (more likely to be your dragon, so you say, than a drakon) is never quadrupedal, and only begins to look dragony well after the bronze age.

None of the drakones in greek myth meet your criteria until the Hellenistic age, and the Roman Imperial Age.....the evidence is against you.

The fact that 'serpent' is often interchangeable with 'dragon' is immaterial to this.....but what do you mean when you use it?

Are you trying to appropriate the support of source material that does not actually support you?

The Ketos were considered fearsome beasts that Pliny stated would attack ships. Few people that got a close look probably lived to tell about it. Yet we see in them an undeniably close resemblance to dragons depicted before and since this time. Many of these creatures are clearly depicted with clawed "arms". It would be difficult to know if the creatures had hind feet because they would be submerged under water.

We have seen that he means whale when he refers to these, unless killing winged quadrupeds for their blubber was a common practice.

The Hellenised people of Western Asia would have considered themselves 'Greek'. They spoke Greek, reead and wrote Greek, and worshipped Greek deities.i They even took the Greek name for their dragon god and not a local one. It wold be appropriate then to state that 'Greeks' worshipped a 'dragon goddess', and not speculation, but a contemporary ancient account. To state they were not "Greek" is as absurd as to say that anyone from a foreign culture that moves to America and adopts american culture, is not an American.

Not really....the Greeks would have, but they were always greatly outnumbered by native peoples....most of whom in the urbane environment did Hellenize....but we know they worshiped their same gods, often repackaged in a Hellenistic style.

This is being horribly general, but its true of most of the Hellenized world. We dont know for instance whether the worship of ketos in the hellenistic levant, was a state/civic cult or whether it was less formal; we dont know whether the local population worshiped the ketos in its original name, but translated by pliny and Hellenism to ketos. We dont know how far the Greek inhabitants took part in these rituals, or viewed the practice.

(or at least i dont know, not having looked into it.)

The point is the worship of Ketos there was ungreek, it was a local custom that may or may not have been adopted by Greek settlers. It was unusual and peculiar enough for Pliny to mention it......if it were ordinary he would not have bothered.

And remember, he says the ketos was 'fabulous'.

He doesnt believe in it.

Therfore you CANNOT support the argument that "Greeks" did not worship a "dragon" deity whcich by this time is clearly recognized as a clawfooted, winged, long necked reptile. And the Ketos shown on coins that obviously honored the deity look distinctively reptilian/dragon-like, though I do agree that some artists who have never seen a "sea dragon" might depict the ketos like a shark that he was more familiar with, but these images are clealry in the minority, compare to long necked reptilian sea dragons.

'which by this time'????

sounds like you are conceeding that the concept of 'dragon' was one that evolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Peter Venkman

linked-image

Laugh a little guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

I've just finished reading through the debate and I just wanted to share my thoughts. I think both made interesting arguments, but I would have like a lot more structure from both members to help keep track of where in the debate we were (the debate went almost two extra posts than advertised before someone brought in their own comments). Gremlin did try to shape his post with an Introduction and an attempted conclusion, though the information in the middle did not appear to follow any particular train of thought. DC did not do either of these, immediately beginning with refutation of the Introduction, and no adequate concluding remarks.

The information from both was interesting, but I have to award the points to Gremlin for much better use of source material. While DC did provide a few links and images, they were few and refuted by Gremlin effectively. In turn, Gremlin provided lots of images supporting his statements. DC relied heavily on conjecture and supposition to support his view, which did not help his view.

Both argued compellingly though, and if we were to presume that both views were true, DC has the edge, particularly in the middle of the debate when discussing the nature of Zeus. However, without anything of substance to back up his comments, I cannot take his views seriously. He may be right, but I need much more supporting evidence before anyone could award him victory in this debate.

Gremlin relied far more on supporting evidence, particularly images of dragons and Gryphons, to share his view. The few pictures that DC shared had more in common with snakes (legless, wingless) than traditional dragons. It would take a large leap in logic to jump from these pictures to widespread worship of fire-breathing god-like beings with scales, wings, four legs and such. And that was, after all, the purpose of the debate.

And that is my final thought on the debate. Thanks to both Gremlin and DC for contributing :tu:

~ PA

edit: finished writing my comment - just noticed I left my last sentence unfinished (must have got sidetracked by something at the time, lol) :P

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
I've just finished reading through the debate and I just wanted to share my thoughts. I think both made interesting arguments, but I would have like a lot more structure from both members to help keep track of where in the debate we were (the debate went almost two extra posts than advertised before someone brought in their own comments). Gremlin did try to shape his post with an Introduction and an attempted conclusion, though the information in the middle did not appear to follow any particular train of thought. DC did not do either of these, immediately beginning with refutation of the Introduction, and no adequate concluding remarks.

The information from both was interesting, but I have to award the points to Gremlin for much better use of source material. While DC did provide a few links and images, they were few and refuted by Gremlin effectively. In turn, Gremlin provided lots of images supporting his statements. DC relied heavily on conjecture and supposition to support his view, which did not help his view.

Both argued compellingly though, and if we were to presume that both views were true, DC has the edge, particularly in the middle of the debate when discussing the nature of Zeus. However, without anything of substance to back up his comments, I cannot take his views seriously. He may be right, but I need much more supporting evidence before anyone could award him victory in this debate.

Gremlin relied far more on supporting evidence, particularly images of dragons and Gryphons, to share his view. The few pictures that DC shared had more in common with snakes (legless, wingless) than traditional dragons. It would take a large leap in logic to jump from these pictures to widespread worship of fire-breathing god-like beings, which was what .

And that is my final thought on the debate. Thanks to both Gremlin and DC for contributing :tu:

~ PA

thanks PA for your thoughts. I think that you've given a pretty fair reflection of the debate.

8 posts seems like loads at the start, i thought id have loads of time and space to effectively deal with all of the things i intended to in my introduction.

i think the structure of my argument broke down as i realised that 8 was nowhere near enough for what i had planned. Instead i confined my attention to one or two points i saw as critical for DC's argument.

I think that if i do another debate ill have a better idea of what's achievable.

I agree DC's argument is compelling, largely due i think to his style of presentation: As you noted it is a complete lack of real supporting evidence that is against him, showing that his initial statement cannot be true... that it is indeed speculation and not fact. By sticking to the Greek culture and not branching off as originally intended DC was unable to hopscotch around different cultures, something his theory relies on, to give his argument the impression of continuity. When forced to examine any one of his assertions in more critical depth than he would like, we see his argument break down.

your last sentence seems incomplete, an enigmatic final thought? :huh::)

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
That refers to snakes as mattshark has pointed out.

No, Mattshark said this referred known snakes like rock pythons, but rock pythons to not live in oceans and salt seas, only small, poisonous sea snakes.

Therefore what is being described here are Ketos/drakons that can raise their heads above the water. Pliny also explains how to repel them from ships. They are not pythons or sea snakes. Neither attacks ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
No, Mattshark said this referred known snakes like rock pythons, but rock pythons to not live in oceans and salt seas, only small, poisonous sea snakes.

Therefore what is being described here are Ketos/drakons that can raise their heads above the water. Pliny also explains how to repel them from ships. They are not pythons or sea snakes. Neither attacks ships.

linked-image

this is pretty much what is being described.....snakes in a breeding ball IMO.

constrictors cant swim???

there is a footnote for this passage on the perseus project...

Cuvier remarks, that there are no serpents with crests on the head, and that Juba must have been thinking probably of some animal of the genus lacertus, when he made this statement. We may here remark, that the "basiliscus," or "king of serpents," was said by the poets to have a crown on its head, as denoting its kingly rank. See c. 33 of this Book.

which may be more appropriate...but cruicially, pliny had no idea what he was talking about.

although as both myself and Mattshark have mentioned, pliny never witnessed this phenomenon, never visited either india or ethiopia.....he just got tall tales about it....he is not reliable on the subject, hence his misconceptions.

and ketos are whales according to pliny.

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
Of course, publishers are swarming on a book about alien created bio-machine Dragons teaching humans how to brew beer authored by someone with no credit on his name in any area of Biology, History or Archeaology.

LOL!

:lol:

I expect no more from an immature teenager. Your attention span is so short short (typical of children your age) that you cannot even remember what I actually have said.

One of my history-oriented books is still for sale in the Museum of London and is pubished in four languages. I have published papers in archaeological journals, though none of this has anything to do with 'dragons'. I am the director of a major military museum, and have regularly appeared on History Channel programs. I have been invited to give lectures on experimental archaeology. But understand that I do not want to reveal my true identity on an internet populated by juvenile delinquents who could make mischeif with it, but there are adults here who know who I am. The dragon book may be published under another name because of its controversial nature, particualrly among religious sectors.

Perhaps it is because you know that you will never amount to much of anything, that you love to attack other people so much. Hopefully you will someday "grow up" and behave like an adult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chaoszerg
One of my history-oriented books is still for sale in the Museum of London and is pubished in four languages. I have published papers in archaeological journals, though none of this has anything to do with 'dragons'. I am the director of a major military museum, and have regularly appeared on History Channel programs. I have been invited to give lectures on experimental archaeology. But understand that I do not want to reveal my true identity on an internet populated by juvenile delinquents who could make mischeif with it, but there are adults here who know who I am. The dragon book may be published under another name because of its controversial nature, particualrly among religious sectors.

So basically what you are saying is that I have done this and that and have been on this and that but I don't want to reveal my identity so sorry guys you cant check it out to see if I'm telling the truth or If I am lying through my teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
linked-image

this is pretty much what is being described.....snakes in a breeding ball IMO.

constrictors cant swim???

there is a footnote for this passage on the perseus project...

which may be more appropriate...but cruicially, pliny had no idea what he was talking about.

although as both myself and Mattshark have mentioned, pliny never witnessed this phenomenon, never visited either india or ethiopia.....he just got tall tales about it....he is not reliable on the subject, hence his misconceptions.

and ketos are whales according to pliny.

Pliny acknowledged both whales and sea going drakons. As for the Drakons of Ethiopia the quote is above. He states the creatures heads tower high in the air, catching the wind while they are swimming, unlike snakes, but exactly like ketos are portrayed. Pliny states they are real. He even refers to ways to repell "drakons" from ships, referred to in some sources, though I have not read the specific passage.

Understand that by Plinys time, terms like drakon and ketos were interchangable. Drakons were described flying in the sky with wings and preying on elephants.

Yes, large constrictors can swim, but they don't in salt water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
I expect no more from an immature teenager. Your attention span is so short short (typical of children your age) that you cannot even remember what I actually have said.

One of my history-oriented books is still for sale in the Museum of London and is pubished in four languages. I have published papers in archaeological journals, though none of this has anything to do with 'dragons'. I am the director of a major military museum, and have regularly appeared on History Channel programs. I have been invited to give lectures on experimental archaeology. But understand that I do not want to reveal my true identity on an internet populated by juvenile delinquents who could make mischeif with it, but there are adults here who know who I am. The dragon book may be published under another name because of its controversial nature, particualrly among religious sectors.

Perhaps it is because you know that you will never amount to much of anything, that you love to attack other people so much. Hopefully you will someday "grow up" and behave like an adult.

a few things crossed my mind while reading this....

does the book come with crayons, or do you have to buy those seperately?.....

....is the book as 'reliable' as your one about dragons is?....if so, is it in the 'fiction' section?

....seriously though, you shouldnt make these wild claims if you are unprepared to back them up.

someone who makes such wild claims in your position has to be prepared for at least some gentle ribbing. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
Pliny acknowledged both whales and sea going drakons. As for the Drakons of Ethiopia the quote is above. He states the creatures heads tower high in the air, catching the wind while they are swimming, unlike snakes, but exactly like ketos are portrayed. Pliny states they are real. He even refers to ways to repell "drakons" from ships, referred to in some sources, though I have not read the specific passage.

Understand that by Plinys time, terms like drakon and ketos were interchangable. Drakons were described flying in the sky with wings and preying on elephants.

Yes, large constrictors can swim, but they don't in salt water.

here we go....

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext...ery=head%3D%231

gimmie a shout when you have found the quotes....im not denying that it is there, only cant be bothered to do your work for you.

it doesnt exist till its found. k ?

also where does they are real? what are? ketos or draconi?

we have seen that when not referring to the mythical and 'fabulous' ketos (which he does not believe in) he is referring to whales.

He also has never witnessed the draconi he describes first hand, just unreliable stories with a hint of a logical explaination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Undeadskeptic
I expect no more from an immature teenager. Your attention span is so short short (typical of children your age) that you cannot even remember what I actually have said.

One of my history-oriented books is still for sale in the Museum of London and is pubished in four languages. I have published papers in archaeological journals, though none of this has anything to do with 'dragons'. I am the director of a major military museum, and have regularly appeared on History Channel programs. I have been invited to give lectures on experimental archaeology. But understand that I do not want to reveal my true identity on an internet populated by juvenile delinquents who could make mischeif with it, but there are adults here who know who I am. The dragon book may be published under another name because of its controversial nature, particualrly among religious sectors.

Perhaps it is because you know that you will never amount to much of anything, that you love to attack other people so much. Hopefully you will someday "grow up" and behave like an adult.

I expect no more from a delusional troll. Your mind is so closed (Typical of attention-seekers such as yourself) that you do not even relaise you are wrong.

One of my history-oriented books is still for sale in the Museum of London and is pubished in four languages. I have published papers in archaeological journals, though none of this has anything to do with 'dragons'. I am the director of a major military museum, and have regularly appeared on History Channel programs. I have been invited to give lectures on experimental archaeology. But understand that I do not want to reveal my true identity on an internet populated by juvenile delinquents who could make mischeif with it, but there are adults here who know who I am. The dragon book may be published under another name because of its controversial nature, particualrly among religious sectors.

Lies. Pitiful lies from a pitiful person who seeks to be better than everyone else because he cannot bear the pitiful reality.

Perhaps it is because you know you'll never amount to to much of anything, that you love to attack people so much. Hopefully you will someday "Get a life" and behave like a sane person.

May I note all of the above is my own opinion and any further comments regarding DC will be in PM form.

Oh, P.S, my agent already got my book sold to a publisher. It will be out this winter. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
Oh, P.S, my agent already got my book sold to a publisher. It will be out this winter. :)

congrats, i hope it is lavishly illustrated. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
I expect no more from a delusional troll. Your mind is so closed (Typical of attention-seekers such as yourself) that you do not even relaise you are wrong.

Lies. Pitiful lies from a pitiful person who seeks to be better than everyone else because he cannot bear the pitiful reality.

Perhaps it is because you know you'll never amount to to much of anything, that you love to attack people so much. Hopefully you will someday "Get a life" and behave like a sane person.

May I note all of the above is my own opinion and any further comments regarding DC will be in PM form.

Oh, P.S, my agent already got my book sold to a publisher. It will be out this winter. :)

If anyone deserves the title of troll on UM it is you. You contribute nothing to the forums other than causng problems. You are very lucky you are just a kid. This can be the only reason why the moderators allow you to get away with all of the abuse you are responsible for. I could care less if you believe my books, occupation, accomplishments, etc are real, the people who matter know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler

I noticed something very interesting about the feedback here. In every instance, the ONLY people who believed Lil Grmelin one are people I have 'bested' in previous discussions here on UM. How odd.

And irregardless of what they said, any adult here should be able to see the facts.

1. I stated from the beginning that the Greek culture as we know it, is FAR younger than those cultures which clearly had dragon gods. No wonder Grem concentrated here, as is situation would be hopeless if he had chosen earlier cultures as he well know, and as LegionRomanes has discovered. But eve so, I was able to demonstrate that the Greek too, did in fact consider serpents and 'dragons' as gods.

2. Gremlin could not prove a single thing I said was false.

3. On the other hand Gremlin was adamant that the Greeks never worshipped Reptilian deities. He was WRONG, millions of greeks worshipped a snake god called Glykon, an ancient god of the classical world that Grem seemed to admit he wasn't even aware of when I first brought it up in the debate!

4. Gremlin was equally sure of himself that Ketos was never condsidered a deity or worshipped. And he was WRONG on both counts, and there can be no debate on this point at all, because it comes from an ancient source.

As I pointed out, Ketos was said to be born of high gods in the Greek mythology and therfore would be a Goddess, and in fact Pliny confirms she was considered a goddess and was worshipped by GREEK speaking and cultured peoples! It doesn't matter if Pliny himself did not believe Ketos was a goddess. The fact remains that her worshippers believed it so.

So here are two gaping holes in Gremlin's defense. His claim that "Dragons were not universal gods" , and his strategy to use the Greeks as an example were COMPLETELY DISCREDITED.

Was I discredited at all in this debate? No. The points I made could not be shaken at all.

So why is it that these seemingly intelligent people in the fields of science, religion, and history, (and a trollish juvenile who I won't even count who just tagged along for the 'ride'), all want to believe Gremlin 'won' , when in fact he failed miserably even when choosing his own "turf"?

It is their arrogance. They cannot believe that someone can make such a seemingly absurd statement that the dragons believed in by mankind all over the world and for thousands of years, migh just be real, and then SUCCESFULLY debate it on these forums because the person making the claim DOES, in fact, know a lot about science, history and religion to show how plausible this theory reallly is. Their own beliefs DICTATE that I must be wrong, so even when I win every point in debates and better them in every argument in the forums, the are unable to comprehend it.

Yes, this was an interesting experiment in human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
congrats, i hope it is lavishly illustrated. :D

Thank you Grem, for demonstrating to all concerned that you are just as immature as the child you are 'encouraging' to engage in trollish behavior.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android
So why is it that these seemingly intelligent people in the fields of science, religion, and history, (and a trollish juvenile who I won't even count who just tagged along for the 'ride'), all want to believe Gremlin 'won' , when in fact he failed miserably even when choosing his own "turf"?
Your arguments fell down for the same reason they always have - lack of supporting evidence. For years you have been on UM, and you have never provided solid supporting evidence for your view. Not a single scholarly article. Needless to say, if your sources were as bare in your university degree, I can't see how you even got past your Undergrad, let alone the head of some fancy unnamed museum.

I don't say that to belittle you, DC. Your views have always been interesting. But in the past when I had PM'd you in order to get scholarly backing for your views (ie, journal articles, University-level texts - quoting author, book, page), you never responded back with anything. You were happy to carry on PM discussions right up until I asked for that detailed source material - suddenly you "forgot" to respond, and I never heard from you again... until the next time.

Again, this is not intended to belittle you. Clearly you believe you won. And now you are basing your lack of support on some misguided vendetta from other people whom you supposedly bested in other discussions. Just a thought here, but I have always taken great stock from this concept - if one person says something concerning you, it might be considered just their opinion. If twenty people all say the same thing about you, perhaps it is you and not them that is at fault. Maybe, just maybe, you should listen to the criticisms and start building up a set of resources that help strengthen your case. Standing back and crying foul about personal vendetta's won't help you at all.

As I noted in my summation, you did provide a bare handful of supporting sources (which was actually more than you have provided in the past, so you have stepped forward a little). But most of what you wrote was simply "this is what the people believed" - that is hearsay. Quoting sources that show that this is what they believed is essential to an argument like this. You claim to have had articles published in journals - you know the weight of "peer review". These kinds of source material are vital to an argument like this. And over the course of the years here, you have consistently failed to present those sources when asked. the very few sources you did use in the debate were border-line and quite effectively refuted by your opponent. Which left only your word that what you are saying is true - Peer review would never allow that. And while I do acknowledge that Forums like this do not expect Journal-level citations, having quotes from various scholars to back your claims do help.

I do wish you the best in your quest to publish your book (how long have you been trying to publish it now?) but when a publisher looks at your manuscript, they are going to need a complete reference list of your quotes and supporting material. But going on the evidence you provided in this debate, your Reference list will be very empty when it comes time to write that bibliography.

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
I noticed something very interesting about the feedback here. In every instance, the ONLY people who believed Lil Grmelin one are people I have 'bested' in previous discussions here on UM. How odd.

And irregardless of what they said, any adult here should be able to see the facts.

1. I stated from the beginning that the Greek culture as we know it, is FAR younger than those cultures which clearly had dragon gods. No wonder Grem concentrated here, as is situation would be hopeless if he had chosen earlier cultures as he well know, and as LegionRomanes has discovered. But eve so, I was able to demonstrate that the Greek too, did in fact consider serpents and 'dragons' as gods.

2. Gremlin could not prove a single thing I said was false.

3. On the other hand Gremlin was adamant that the Greeks never worshipped Reptilian deities. He was WRONG, millions of greeks worshipped a snake god called Glykon, an ancient god of the classical world that Grem seemed to admit he wasn't even aware of when I first brought it up in the debate!

4. Gremlin was equally sure of himself that Ketos was never condsidered a deity or worshipped. And he was WRONG on both counts, and there can be no debate on this point at all, because it comes from an ancient source.

As I pointed out, Ketos was said to be born of high gods in the Greek mythology and therfore would be a Goddess, and in fact Pliny confirms she was considered a goddess and was worshipped by GREEK speaking and cultured peoples! It doesn't matter if Pliny himself did not believe Ketos was a goddess. The fact remains that her worshippers believed it so.

So here are two gaping holes in Gremlin's defense. His claim that "Dragons were not universal gods" , and his strategy to use the Greeks as an example were COMPLETELY DISCREDITED.

Was I discredited at all in this debate? No. The points I made could not be shaken at all.

So why is it that these seemingly intelligent people in the fields of science, religion, and history, (and a trollish juvenile who I won't even count who just tagged along for the 'ride'), all want to believe Gremlin 'won' , when in fact he failed miserably even when choosing his own "turf"?

It is their arrogance. They cannot believe that someone can make such a seemingly absurd statement that the dragons believed in by mankind all over the world and for thousands of years, migh just be real, and then SUCCESFULLY debate it on these forums because the person making the claim DOES, in fact, know a lot about science, history and religion to show how plausible this theory reallly is. Their own beliefs DICTATE that I must be wrong, so even when I win every point in debates and better them in every argument in the forums, the are unable to comprehend it.

Yes, this was an interesting experiment in human nature.

sorry, i think you must have been reading the wrong debate, no scratch that...the above wouldnt apply to any discussion you are in.

you are wrong on all counts DC....and trying to deflect from that fact.

the debate was about this statement you made....

An entire world of early man considered giant flying reptiles that we call dragons today once were their gods. This i not my speculation, it is fact.

you could not back it up, so you failed even before i started to disect your argument.

The greeks coined the term drakon, thats why i chose them.

You could not prove that any Greeks saw/worshiped giant quadrupedal flying reptiles. And you could not back up the claims you made with relevent evidence.

That's the simple truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore
I noticed something very interesting about the feedback here. In every instance, the ONLY people who believed Lil Grmelin one are people I have 'bested' in previous discussions here on UM. How odd.

The only thing odd about it is...you are the only one to thinks that.

As I noted in my summation, you did provide a bare handful of supporting sources (which was actually more than you have provided in the past, so you have stepped forward a little). But most of what you wrote was simply "this is what the people believed" - that is hearsay.

*Directed at DC*

It is only recent history I seen that you did know how to make a link.

Grem...did you even break a sweat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Undeadskeptic
congrats, i hope it is lavishly illustrated. :D

As lavish as they come :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.