Talk:Longevity myths

The Use of the Word "Myth" is Biased, and Apparently Meant to be Insulting

Had the writer titled this article "Longevity Stories," or "Ancient Longevity Accounts," then there would be no dispute.I believe that the author was fully aware of this, and deliberately categorized religious accounts as 'myth' and is using obfuscation when challenged on the use of the word. By having a floating meaning of the word 'myth' the author seeks to continue to be denigrating towards religion. Even if there is a technical definition of the word 'myth' that may be used with a pretense of being accurate, it is admitted that when the word 'myth' is used, it is meant that something is not true; and I'm sure the author of this article is fully aware of this fact. If the same word 'myth' were used to categorize evolution, such as "The Myth of Evolution," then there would be a firestorm of challenges that would have resulted in a very quick retraction of the use of the word myth to describe evolution although technically evolution is a myth.

Proof: Mirriam Webster Dictionary, Definition of myth 1a: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. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

The Bible's use of the word 'myth' to describe genealogies means nothing when one considers that the Biblical author could be speaking of genealogies of other belief systems such as the Roman claim that Roman emperors descended from Romulus, or Aeneas. The Romans were occupying Judea during the time Timothy called geneaologies "myth." The Biblical writer could have been biased, but that does not make the use of the word 'myth' a fair one, even from a Biblical person, when it is not challenged in the Bible by a person of another faith. There are other religions mentioned in this article which are accounts that are taken seriously by the followers of of the very religions this article seeks to denigrate with a pretense of being written by a clueless, oblivious, naive (some people would say 'innocent') writer.

Remedy: Change the title of the article such that it is not biased towards any group. To call religious accounts a 'myth' is biased towards atheism. To say that these accounts are true are biased towards every religion even though each may actually believe that their counterparts are not true. The word "accounts" is better than myths because it allows religious and humanistic points of view to argue their position in history without having an article making a declaration of his/her atheistic beliefs as if those beliefs are fact. If there are no 'modern' accounts that something happened (even though there are ancient ones), then equally, and opposite, it must be admitted that there is no modern account that something did not happen. Not to mention all of our accounts will seem ancient to some group of people in the distant future. If we follow this author's point of view then we may as well get a head start and say that cars are a myth since when fuel runs out, people will be back to riding horses.

Trounds2 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Tyrone Rounds

There is no "the writer" - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort with many writers. We know what a myth is, and the word is correct, as evidenced by its use in reliable sources.

You lost the rest of your credibility when you wrote "evolution is a myth". This is a science-based encyclopedia. You will be better served at a myth-based encyclopedia such as Conservapedia. Maybe the Talk pages there are more tolerant of endless blathering too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The use of 'myth' is not meant to offend the religious, and it shouldn't. For example, many Christian scholars agree that the extreme ages of certain individuals in Genesis are an indication that Genesis was written to be interpreted as mythological. See, for example, here (this article, by a Christian scholar, is used as a source in the Longevity myths article here). -- Pingumeister^(talk) 10:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for changing the name.

1.) Why presuppose the biblical accounts to be "myth"? As Trounds2 said, it's biased towards scientism/naturalism. Here's another possibility: the biblical lifespans are intended to be taken literally, not mythically. And here's a further possibility: the numbers found in the bible are accurate. It's not impossible. Science cannot (and doesn't attempt to) prove the uniformity of nature. Science cannot (and doesn't attempt to) disprove the existence of the supernatural or the preternatural, or the possibility of miracles. "Scientism" (the belief that science alone can explain everything, or that everything ought to be explained in naturalistic terms) is not science; it's philosophy. (Bad philosophy, i.e. superstition.)

2.) Setting aside the religious figures, why are the ages of Yellow Emperor, Emperor Yao, Emperor Shun, Taejo of Goguryeo, Manuchehr, Lohrasp, Goshtasp, and Piast Kołodziej listed as "mythic"? Their reputed lifespans are not altogether incredible even if we presuppose naturalism (which I don't suggest we do).

3.) Even for cases where the numbers are (literally) false or otherwise inaccurate, I'm hesitant to label them all as "myth". Because the word "myth" is very poorly defined to begin with, but I think "myths" usually involve high levels of symbolism and are based in little to no historical reality. Compare that with the recorded lifespans. Some of this might not be "myth" but mere exaggeration. Others might be genuine myth. But they're probably not all "myth".

4.) Maybe this was just poor planning, but why is that modern cases with purported ages above 130 are placed here in this section of the "myth" page, whereas cases with purported ages below 130 are placed on the list on the separate "Longevity claims" article? This seems awfully suspect. So we're defining "myth" to mean any age above a certain cutoff number--a number arbitrarily chosen by the editors? 2601:49:C301:D810:70CB:FE12:C6C6:ABB1 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

1. They are a myth, just like the Greek myths or the Celtic myths. What else would they be? You can believe they are true, but Wikipedia rules forbid us to claim your opinion as true. See the first paragraph of Myth.
2. It is not incredible that someone named Heracles killed a lion. The myth of the Nemean lion is still a myth. Credibility is not the criterion for that.
3. See 2. Myth is not "poorly defined", you are only poorly informed about its definition. See Myth and the sources quoted there.
4. Oh, I did not expect a useful question after all that nonsense. I will let others respond to that one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

   "Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. Since "myth" is widely used to imply that a story is not objectively true, the identification of a narrative as a myth can be highly controversial." It is not wise to make a highly controversial title. Lightest (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

   By that reasoning, Human evolution is not a wise title for an article.

   You have to discern between "controversial" within the general public and within the expert community. Only the latter counts. We cannot keep mum about a fact just because ignorant people will disagree with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous reason why we consider anybody claims living over 130 years or above as myth

1) From the statistics we found that, for any people living more than 100 years old, only 1 out of 1000 person can live 110 years old or older. For most of people who live 110+, they are likely can live a very short time. Giving the probability living to 100 years are 1 out of 100. From this basic statistics, we can learnt that P(100+ life span) is 1/100, P(110+) is 1/100K, P(120+) is 1/100M, and P(130+) is 1/100B. Giving the probability of living 130+ is 1/100 billion, we can say it is almost impossible to live beyond this age limit.

2) From the historical text, although there are many untrustable historical text, there are many trustable historical text. Say the lifespan of emporer, take china as example, the average is less than 40 years and the maximum is 89 years old. That means that ancient lifespan, both in terms of average and maximum, can consider as far less than today.

3) The term myth literally means supernatural stories or extraordinary stories. Of course living 130+ stories are extraordinary stories, so it is a myth. So I think stories and myth are the same term in this case.Joeccho (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Add Rama and Dasharatha for Hinduism

Rama a popular avatar of Vishnu ruled his kingdom Ayodhya for 11,000 years according to the Ramayana. Source:Balakanda sarga 1 shloka 97. Rama's father Dasharatha lived for more than 60,000 years Source:Balakanda sarga 20 shloka 10. I am unable to edit this page to add these. If anyone can edit please add these 2. Iamsreeman (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Add Taṇhaṅkara and Vipassī for Buddhism

Taṇhaṅkara lived for 100,000 years. Vipassī lived for either 80,000 or 100,000 years. In Vipassī's time, the longevity of humans was 84,000 years. Sources are already given in those respective pages. Iamsreeman (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add that Lightest (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Bhagiratha for Hinduism

Bhagiratha did tapas for 1000 deva or god years (360,000 years in Human years) to please Ganga, to gain the release his 60,000 great-uncles from the curse of saint Kapila. So, Bhagiratha lived for more than 360,000 years. Source: [1]https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03108.htm Iamsreeman (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC).

Edit: wikipedia now allowed me to edit and I added the last 3 messages.

Fix Greek Mythology ages

We are told in the book 'Macrobii' that Nestor lived for 3 generations, but there's no basis/source I know of that the greeks thought that 1 generation == 100 years. There's more evidence to suggest they thought 3 generations == 100 years. Herod. 2:142: "Three generations of men make one hundred years." So change Nestor 300yrs -> 100 yrs And Tiresias 600yrs -> 200 yrs 110.22.22.218 (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Chesten Marchant

I believe that Chesten Marchant is a significant enough figure to warrant his own page, as the last reported Cornish monoglot and claims about his age seem to me to be interesting enough to justify it. At the moment, all links to him redirect here, and I cannot figure out how to fix that as he isn't technically red-linked, so I can't see how to create a page for him. Apologies if I'm asking an unnecessary question, I would like to create this page, however, I cannot see how at the moment. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Deadexcel (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)