Talk:Mythicism
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
The Mythicist Position
[edit]Many of us would like to see the mythicist position worked into the article here.
Acharya S has created the first succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists in her book, Christ in Egypt (2009):
The Mythicist Position:
"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology."
As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."
- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, page 11-12
"What is a Mythicist?" article
--Jose5643 16:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs)
many of you? How many of you are there, Jose? Are you demonically possessed or something? It is hardly "the mythicist position" to state that Noah is a mythological character. It's a trivial fact arising from the definition of "mythological character". King David, Jesus Christ, King Arthur, Winston Churchill and Richard Feynman are more difficult to categorize, because they are historical characters which around whom a kind of mythology arose.
The completely misguided (in this context) false dichotomy "accepted as myths, rather than historical figures" shows why Acharya S should not be considered WP:RS material, and should not be cited anywhere on Wikipedia. If you do cite her, you will invariably just damage others' attempts to present a clear picture of these questions. --dab (𒁳) 11:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Your extreme biases against Acharya S tells us far more about your own credibility than hers. Is she or anyone else not allowed have the mythicist position as a world view? Who are you to tell anyone what they can or cannot accept? Maybe you should be banned from Wiki? You should read the links before commenting out of ignorance. You're obviously not qualified to comment on this issue as your biases ruin your credibility here. All you have to offer here is a hand-waving dismissal without investigation.
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." — Albert Einstein
The fact remains that the mythicist position created by Achayra S is the only one in existence. There has never been such a clear succinct comprehensive position for mythicists until now. There are clear definitions for god beleivers = theist, non-beleivers = atheist, non-committal = agnostic and a view that supernatural events to added to a historical characters biography = evemerist position. However, there exists no such thing for mythicists. It's time there is. --Jose5643 18:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs)