Talk:Creation myth

Important notice: The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy and the Words to Avoid guideline. Furthermore, it reflects the consensus among editors here and has been discussed several times in the past. Before starting another discussion about the article title, please consult the above policy and guideline, and read through the archives to see if your concern has already been addressed.

lead

The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;[4][5] however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.

That is what people who seriously write on the subject think, and that is what the article on mythology says. So, something along those lines should be in this article as well. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the following, which had been inserted as a final paragraph in the lead section, here for discussion

It must be mentioned that the term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to false claims or false stories, while this article uses it in the academic sense, in which calling something a "myth" or not denote something as untrue or true.

I think the wording there is clumsy, particularly the closing phrase. I'll suggest one possible rewording which borrows from the lead section of the Mythology article.

The term myth is often used colloquially to refer to false claims or false stories. This article uses the term in an the academic sense, referring to a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. The term myth as used in this article should not be construed as a claim about truth or falsity.

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ASR, WP:NDA, and the mythology article is the article to discuss usage of the term myth. This article is about a particular type of myth and it should stay focused on that. Ben (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a disclaimer. It is a correct statement of fact about what the academic literature describes 'creation myths' as. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it should be mentioned prominently. Sventington the Second (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben, your own sandbox states that that "myth" is not simply to be equated with "falsehood" — have become part of mainstream scholarship. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Til. Ben (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an idea, just move the article to Creation theory. It is a theory, and myth is avoided. That way there is no problem.--WillC 16:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Creation myths aren't really "theories" about how the universe was created. An article on "creation theories" would encompass things such as the big band, steady state theory, and intelligent design, which is not what this article is supposed to be about. I've thought long and hard to come up with an alternate title for this article, and the only possible alternative I can think of that might be acceptable is "Creation mythology", though I'm not sure "mythology" is any more acceptable of a term to people than "myth". Rreagan007 (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Usually when you think creation theory you think of the Christianity theory. Seeing as no one knows how the universe was actually created, this article should include every theory/myth. The Big Bang is just as plausible as the Christianity belief in creation or anyother belief. None of them have been proven as fact yet, so in a sense, saying myth in this sense of creation in a religious stand-point but theory in a scientific stand-point when neither has been proven is not neutral in my point of view. Plus I'm not on here because I'm a Christian. Just on here to make sure everything is correct. I see alot of atheist on here that tend to ignore NPOV alot (not saying you do if you are an atheist, I don't even know you or come on articles like this alot. I just saw it on page protection and thought to see what was going on). Now I understand this article is mainly about religious beliefs, but why is it so? Instead of using myth in a maybe true or maybe false way, why not just rewrite the lead and say this is a list of creation theories. Expand the article! Otherwise, there is going to be alot of ips come on here being upset, because no matter how it is spun, the first thought that comes to mind for myth is untrue, false, etc. With theory, it is neutral and, well, true. I don't see mythology. Any word that tends to make people think it is false, will just cause trouble. I don't think that is netural.--WillC 17:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A very common misconception; you've mistaken the colloquial meaning of "theory" ("just an idea someone came up with") with the SCIENTIFIC definition. A scientific theory is something with actual, real, observable evidence behind it. Which puts the Big Bang a couple pegs above any creation myth you care to name, in terms of plausibility. Referring to these myths as 'theories' alongside the big bang serves no purpose but to hurt their credibility, and would be irresponsible.--King ♣ Talk 19:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is already very large under its current scope, and you want to expand it to include all plausable theories on the origin of the universe? Even assuming I agreed with you, which I don't, all creation myths are not plausible. There are creation myths in the article that nobody living on Earth today thinks are plausable theories of how the universe came about. You have some creation myths from religions that are no longer practiced by anyone and from cultures that no longer exist. And why not include the Flying Spaghetti Monster while we're at it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

They are all possible. I know the FSM is supposed to just be a parody of religion and God which is childish for the person who came up with it, but they all have marit. The article could probably be cut down pretty well. When I took my first article to FAC, it was at 50 kilobytes. I thought I would never get it down below 40 nor did I think I would get anyother article of the same type below 40. But I've gotten articles to below 30. It just takes effort. Taking the easy way out doesn't help anything. A simple way to make sure all the articles are correct is better for the project.--WillC 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you have good intentions, but frankly I'd rather just delete the whole article than do what you propose. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientology?

Resolved

 – Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering why this article does not include a section for the Scientology creation myth? I'm not a scientologist but I figured that it could be put out there since it is a unique interpretation of the beginning of existence. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems appropriate. I don't have a source at hand for the scientology creation myth, though, so perhaps you could add it. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

>> All right. I will look for some commonly sourced sites on this information. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You may have some problems finding a RS, given how tightly Scientology keeps their creation myth a secret. Xenu may provide some sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A section has been added .. removed .. and added again , which I think is nothing to do with creation as it occurs way after creation. It should be binned imho. Abtract (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Many creation myths don't deal with the actual creation of the universe. However, they DO all deal with the origin of humanity (as we know it). Keep it. --King ♣ Talk 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I was the one who added it back until it could be discussed. I put a tag on it but I'm not sure I used the right one... Cmiych (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear as to whether the Scientology story deals with the origin of human beings, or only of these spirits that supposedly inhabit humans? Please clarify. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Creation Myth -everything had to start some where

Any debate or discussion needs to rely on facts to prove a statement or belief. On this subject of creation or any other there are always limiting factors. I ask you to ask your self, what is the limiting factor in your belief? What is a "limiting factor"? it is a the fact which proves your thought or belief cannot be true. We often make statements based on general excepted evidence yet these statements have conflicting factual points with other statements of our belief. An example would be that I can believe that it took millions of years to make the Grand Canyon and yet we have trees in various archaically layers that are supposed to be millions of years apart. This limits the generally published (in this case not totally excepted) statement that the grand canyon was formed over millions of years. Many people will try to ignore this issue but it is an insurmountable factual piece of data. By this limiting factor we know that the Grand canyon did not form over millions of years. I ask everyone to look at each and every belief and then determine if there is a limiting factor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.153.65 (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We already have an article on the Geology of the Grand Canyon area, covering its formation over "millions of years" and there is no reason to rehash the issue here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is unconstructive. You admit you don't understand empirical geological facts, as it would also be one that the Grand Candyon did form over millions of years. If you want to promote your psuedoscientific views elsewhere, go to the specific pages. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now how would trees be a limiting factor in this? It's not like trees only formed for a 6-day period however many years ago. Trees have been around for a long, long time. --King Öomie 14:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe he may be referring to polystrate fossils. Creationists believe (wrongly, as usual) that they form some sort of problem for orthodox geology. Regardless, it is off-topic for this article -- which is about the contents of creation myths, not whether they bear any relationship to scientific facts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Deleted "mytho-religious" as redundant. Desoto10 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a creation myth just as legitimate, if not more so, when compared to the other ones in the "modern" section, such as Raelianism or Scientology or the others. Does a myth necessarily have to have believers? Thousands if not millions of people know of the FSM and its creation myth, and some of the creation myths on this page are quite obscure and probably have little to no believers left, making them less relevant, IMHO. Since the entire idea of the FSM is to parody the Judeo-Christian creation myth, and the FSM is a creation myth itself, it is beyond me why my addition of a section on the FSM was removed. I honestly do not see why it would not belong in this article, because it is not as if any of the other myths are any more true than it is. They are just that: myths. It is perfectly relevant to the subject of this article, and what I put about it was all correct, to the best of my knowledge, mostly information from the Flying Spaghetti Monster Wikipedia article. And I am not even a follower of Pastafarianism, just one of the many people who has heard of it. This article seems incredibly long and documents a vast array of different creation myths, and yet I add just one more and it is removed. Instead of a pointless edit war, why not simply explain the reasoning behind removing the section I added? --69.205.228.89 (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

FSM's 'creation myth' is neither a particularly serious one (having been created as a parody of Intelligent design) nor a particularly prominent one (I rather doubt if its received any notice from anthropologists or experts in comparative religions). As such it would be WP:UNDUE to include them in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. I know next to nothing about Wikipedia policy other than trying to be NPOV and encyclopedic, and mostly just try to improve articles, but that seems like a legitimate reason not to include it in this article. The Flying Spaghetti Monster article on Wikipedia has quite a lot of information, so I guess if people want to know about it, they can just look at that article instead. Since I agree with you now, I guess this matter is settled. --69.205.228.89 (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I had previously deleted the Flying Spaghetti Monster section from this article as vandalism, but I see now that it was an addition with some serious thought behind it. I apologize. I still don't believe that it belongs with the other myths, because, as far as I can tell, no one has ever believed it. However, as a parody of a creation myth, a link to Flying Spaghetti Monster belongs in the "See also" section. Plazak (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No comment?

An IP editor has removed material without talk page comment. Material added by the same IP has been reverted but not that. Just sayin' TheresaWilson (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Judaism and Christianity section

It was deleted and reverted, which is how it caught my eye. The preceeding paragraph references II Peter and discusses views of the early Christian church. The last paragraph begins with The Church was not, however, literalist, and Biblical commentators throughout the ages discussed the degree to which the accounts of Creation were to be taken literally or allegorically but then proceeds to reference Jewish theologians and scholars. Maimonides, Gersonides and Rabbi Dressler have nothing to do with the Church. I would say that the Jewish references should be pulled out of the Christian section and relocated, and that Christian references should be found to back up the assertion made in the lede of the last paragraph. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

I would like to appologise in advance for what I am about to say on the basis that I understand that I am not the first person to raise issue with the "creation myth" title applied to this article. Its just that I cannot see how this title reflects a neutral point of view and, as such, would like to propose the use of the title "account of creation". It seems to me that the conclusion that regards these "accounts of creation" as being representative of "creation myths" to may well be interpreted to be biased in its skepticism.

Can anyone prove that, for instance, A'akuluujjusi or Zamba were not actually involved in creation? Arguments can obviously be raised to propose alternative explanations of existence and some of these arguments may well be interpreted to be very convincing and yet, as a skeptic I'd like it to be proposed that they are no more than that, arguments.

It seems to be apparent that there are "accounts of creation" that relates to the creative activities of a wide range of "creators". There may well be storng arguments to say that these accounts are of a mythical nature and yet these arguments are, ultimately, inconclusive. It can be readily admitted that the creative contributions of A'akuluujjusi and Zamba cannot be proven and yet neither can they be disproven.

Can anyone prove that, for instance, A'akuluujjusi did not rig the physical evidence so as to suggest alternative explanations of existance? Can anyone prove that, from an alternative 'instant', that a Cartesian 'demon' did not feed the individual with a particular view of reality that was suggest of this form of apparent evidence. René Descartes opted to argue against this view through reasonings that were dependent on the conception of the existence of God and yet it may be interpreted that a God of the type conceived in Cartesian philosophy might choose to validate any particular creation myth of 'his' choosing. Can anyone disprove the concept represented in the idea of the Cartesian demon without calling on a higher authority? If someone can then this action would, in my view, generate a greatly valued contribution to philosophical understandings of existence.

The Wikipedia article on, 'Mythology' begins "Mythology is the study of myths and or of a body of myths". This definition, however, raises the question related to who it is that may decide whether a story has a mythical nature.

What is the nature of a particular story? It may be argued that there are two fundamental interpretations that people may take. Either it is true or it is untrue. People who believe a story to be true will, by definition, have interpreted that there was truth in the story. People who don't believe a story to be true will have interpreted the story to have be untrue and may, classically, have regarded the story to possess a mythical nature. It may be argued that different people may come to differing opinions with regard to the nature of any particular story and it may even be agued that, within conceptions of freedom of thought, their liberty to do so should be protected.

Mythologists are at liberty to adopt their own interpretations with regard to the veracity of various stories and as such an outsiders view of mythology might regard it to be "the study of stories that are (widely/commonly/sometimes/on occasion/typically/often*) interpreted to be myths".

• choose description to fit

In an adult world it may be regarded that each individual should be empowered to come to their own conclusions with regard to the veracity of any particular story and this light, and as someone who experiences no particular belief with the regard to the existence of any particular conception of any form of creative agency, the assertion of the mythical nature of certain stories isn't regarded to be welcome.

Based on the argument that a level playing field for debate should always be preserved and according to the view that a "neutral point of view" should always be adopted I propose that a title along the lines of "account of creation" be used in connection to this article.

Gregkaye (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

myth … 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon[1]

As far as I can tell, all the 'Creation myths' in this article fall under this definition. Calling them 'accounts' would appear to violate WP:GEVAL by giving them equal validity to the results of historical and scientific research. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your (very long) argument gives me the impression that you haven't actually read through WP:NPOV. If that is true, you really should give it a read. You shouldn't get too far into it before you realise the 'neutral' word in the title of the policy is coupled to reliable sources, not to any particular editors or groups feelings on the matter. Ben (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition continues:

… b : parable, allegory  2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion  3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence  4 : the whole body of myths [2]

As far as I am able to reason, all the 'creation stories' in the article in question are likely to be myths - by any definition. The only trouble is, and its not for want of trying, I can't prove it.

account • noun 1 a description of an event or experience. 2 a record of financial expenditure and receipts. 3 a service through a bank or similar organization by which funds are held on behalf of a client or goods or services are supplied on credit. 4 importance: money was of no account to her. [3]

I personally see no problem with the use of this word on the basis that an 'account' can be either interpreted to true or false. Who trusts an accountant? (edit: O.K. the word is suggestive of the existence of source material which may be taken to represent a lack of neutrality).

story • noun (pl. stories) 1 an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment. 2 an account of past events, experiences, etc. 3 an item of news. 4 a storyline. 5 informal a lie.
— ORIGIN Old French estorie, from Latin historia ‘history’. [4]

Despite its history this word has a less respectful (but remarkably similar) meaning as that presented by 'account' and yet is ready to be used.

The word 'myth' is defined by falacy and is far from neutral.

Perhaps 'accounts of creation' can be proven to be myths. Perhaps they may be proven to be legends and, if so, fine. In the meantime I consider that answers to the questions that I have raised may present valued contributions to the content of this discussion page.

Gregkaye (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My advice above still stands. Ben (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I did not include the 'continuation' because the first MW definition is both the main, and clearly the most relevant, definition of "myth".
2. "Myth" already contains "story" in its definition, "a usually traditional story…". Can you demonstrate that many (any?) of these 'stories' aren't traditional? "Myth" is the more precise term, and thus should be used.
3. "Account" generally has an undertone of greater verifiability than "myth" or "story", either as a first person account of events witnessed, or as the account reconstructed as the result of research. As none of these 'traditional stories' are in any way verifiable (other than their existence within the appropriate religious or cultural tradition), I would suggest that "myth" (which is explicitly only "ostensibly historical") is far more appropriate.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 
I propose that the use of the word 'myth' in the use in its use in the title of this article, to canibalise the common phrase, be busted.

The use of this word is not neutral and perhaps a title such as "Creation story (Religion)" may be used. Alternatively it may be argued that a title such as "Creation story (Religion-Mythology)" might be used and yet it may be interpreted that the stories are typically of religion and interpreted within mythological studies.

The word 'myth' [5] [6] [7] can clearly be taken to presents its hearer with a concept of an untrue story. The words 'account' and 'story' don't do this.

The description of a "true account or story" can be clearly taken to describe an account or story that is claimed to be true. The description of an "untrue account or story" can be clearly taken to describe an account or story that is claimed to be untrue. This happens for the simple reason that these words both possess a notable degree of neutrality.

In contrast a description of a "true myth" can clearly be taken to describe a story that is certainly untrue. However, a description of an "untrue myth" can be taken to describe something that is not a myth. A simple mathematical equation can be taken to explain what's going on: +1 ✕ -1  =  -1. As such a description "untrue myth" may be take to be descriptive "non-fiction" and this can happen due to the clear definition of a myth as fiction.

No I can't demonstrate (prove) that any of the 'traditional stories' (as they have been perhaps fairly described) are not traditional. Moreover I would find it difficult to imagine that any orally recounted story of significant age would not have been affected by the influences of a transmitting society.

At the other extreme I cannot provide any conclusive proof that these stories have or haven't been based on a supposed true account of creation.

The particular difficulty in the current case is that the stories involved tend to call on supernatural agencies that may or may not include 'God'. This raises the question how might 'God' have done it. Indeed, it may be imagined that an entity with divine ability could do whatever he wanted and yet this statement does not cover the potential freedom. It could also be considered that she could have done whatever she liked as well. I would still tend to argue that there may be limits to divine freedom[8] but you get the point.

At the moment the article begins: A creation myth or cosmogonic myth is a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony),[1] often as a deliberate act by one or more deities.

Perhaps the article could begin: A creation story is an explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony),[1] often through the deliberate action by one or more deities. {and then say something like:} These stories are widely regarded to be mythical in nature. Citations related to significant claims should, surely, always be needed.

I hope that this may conclude matters relating to the current issue but, if not, can anyone actually disprove the various creative claims related to the variously claimed creators of history (my divinism website contains a list)[9] and the previously mentioned questions?

Gregkaye (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You're beating a dead horse here. This issue has been discussed discussed before in now-archived threads, and the overwhelming consensus has always been, as it is now, to keep the word "myth". Plazak (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not overstate your claimed consensus. There are strong arguments on both sides. We need to use common names in Wikipedia. The most common usage of myth is clearly a false fairytale: one accademic usage is broader. I could support a neutral title of "creation story" which does not judge the content. Grantmidnight (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(i) You have not substantiated your claim that "The most common usage of myth is clearly a false fairytale" -- MW clearly thinks otherwise. (ii) Even if its most common meaning is "a false fairytale" it should be noted that (a) a "fairytale" is a traditional story about the supernatural (and thus a synonym of the 'academic' definition of myth) & (b) that the majority of the people in the world are not of a specific religion or culture, and so disbelieve that religion or culture's specific creation myth (and often even many adherents of the culture or religion that spawned it do not take them literally). (iii) I would suggest that (ii-b) is most probably how "myth" developed its metaphorical/colloquial meaning, making it even less unreasonable to use it in its literal/formal sense. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, this amounts to a religious debate. According to the rules, the onus is on you to unsubstantiate his claims. --King Öomie 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that I can simply declare 'my religion says that your religion is wrong' (and what religion doesn't say that in some shape or form) and flip the onus back onto him? >:) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, religion is a personal belief. Within reasonable limitations, we must allow other people to hold and to present their views, even if we disagree with them. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Demonstrably false- WP:GEVAL, WP:V, WP:PSEUDO. Wikipedia isn't here to reaffirm whatever garbage people already believe. --King Öomie 16:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose at the end of the day, a "myth" (whichever the definition you choose) is something that 'other people believe', and that everybody has a knee-jerk dislike of finding themselves part of that 'other people'. However, Wikipedia is meant to be based upon what the experts say, not on knee-jerk dislikes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should all remember that this discussion does not relate to a popularity contest of ideas but to the single issue of what is right. Neutrality has been presented as the central issue in the debate. I have also raised a number of issues that I would not like to be forgotten.
(quick link to top of the section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_myth#Neutral_point_of_view.3F)

However, at this stage I think it may be wise to get things in a historical perspective.

Scholars have always recognised the word myth as being derived from the Greek μῦθος (a tale; fiction ('myth')) [10] [11].

The Wikipedia article on Mythology speaks of Euhemerus (working late fourth century B.C.) as: interpreted myths as accounts of actual historical events,...
However, I am guessing that he did not actually use the word 'myth'.

The article continues: ... 19th-century theories framed myth as a failed or obsolete mode of thought ...
I'm guessing again and this my guess is that this amounts to a view that may have been widely considered in the eighteen hundreds that: we, as good Christians, are right and, even though we respect that Aristotle chap, what everyone else believes is a right load of conveniently dismissable tosh.

The sad thing is that anyone at any time could have stood up and said that we can't actually prove that the various events recounted in ancient stories did not actually happen. No one was able to effectively able to stand up for the rights of ancient beliefs to be regarded with neutrality and then it was suddenly to late. At some point someone, in effect, said, "I don't Adam and Eve it!" The biblical creation story became just as vulnerable to the wrongs of the myth interpretation as everything else. Well that's equality for you. Things are equal and yet they are not fair.

Consider the story of young Z. Z is well behaved, goes to school without problems, is relatively friendly and happens to share the same religious beliefs as his parents. There's no way to know how it started but one day the the other kids found out about what Z believed. Ha, ha, Z believes such and such. What's wrong with that? Its a myth. And there's no denying it. There's little chance for debate. No proof is offered as to why the belief is wrong and yet even the God damn encyclopedia says its a myth.

Gregkaye (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC) (all comments are of a non-biographical nature)

Please don't confuse neutrality for validity. Also, Burden of proof. We make fun of Z because he ignores the evidence in front of his face, not because we can't prove a negative. --King Öomie 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I would hope that anyone with a scholarly background sufficient to readily recall the origin of the word 'Myth' would also have the mental faculties to see that the term is quite apt. --King Öomie 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No Öomie I think that you will find that you make fun of Z because you are the kind of person who makes fun of people. Oh, and thanks for raising the burden of proof issue. And perhaps you can reread what I said about the definitions of 'account', story and myth. 90.193.209.169 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose a name change. As it is, the article neutrally presents ALL creation myths as MYTHS. I see absolutely no reason to raise their validity in such a blanket fashion, especially for religious sensibilities. And I think you'll find that I said "we". I don't appreciate your assumptions about my character. --King Öomie 21:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to detract from the ethical issues that are raised by the blanket description of every "supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe" as being a myth and yet I still want raise this reminder of the burden of proof issue recently raised. I'd also recomend that people might refrain from the use of first person descriptions in their writing if perhaps they don't mean it. 90.193.209.169 (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)