I feel like that some people mix these two up.
That is likely due to the embellishments given to events, things and people as each wends its way into legendary status. Prior to legendary one is still in the real of fabled, old wives tales, tall tales, etc. Being legendary does not immediately grant special status that a given then is more real, it just means that more people find that given thing enchanting enough to continue the telling of the tales. Again, legends are not necessarily about real things, events or people but could simply be the products of exceptional storytellers who captivated their audiences of yesteryear and for generations thereafter. It's hard to kill a good meme.
Why would someone dismiss something because it's just a legend, as if to assume it's a fantasy?
We dismiss them when we understand that without corroborating evidence outside the legends we have only the elaborate tales themselves - which isn't much to hang ones hat on. There is no penalty for believing that legends may be real, Atlantis is a great example, but those who choose to believe strongly in the veracity of the tales also must understand that they have entered into the realm of wishful thinking and suspension of disbelief.
We know what's fantasy like in fiction but legend isn't fantasy. Legends are legend?
It's more a question of probability, really. Also there is nothing that says a legend cannot be pure fantasy, so to say that legend isn't fantasy isn't being honest.
They are debatable while fantasy isn't debatable. And there is always some truth in legends.
The idea that legends always have some truth in them is highly debatable and is an assumption that actually has no solid ground to base itself on. Some legends DID form around real events, people and things, that we have corroborating evidence of, most legends have nothing but a long history to support them.
Otherwise they wouldn't be legends in the first place.Like with Jesus or with the Golem or other certain legendary creatures which could have existed.
Just because something is possible does not mean that it is particularly probable.
I think that not having enough evidence doesn't mean something doesn't exist.
Of course it doesn't. It simply means we have no evidence. The flip-side of this unsavory coin is that because there is no evidence of a given thing one should be wary of believing in it if it is not a particularly probable thing.
If we never discovered dinosaurs, does that mean dinosaurs never existed? No they existed whether we discovered it or not?
Interesting thinking here. If we had not found evidence that dinosaurs existed we would never know because we did not inhabit the earth until long, long, long after they had been exterminated. There were no tales unless you want to take fanciful tales of dragons literally. There are no legends about creatures like T-rex or velociraptors etc... or even the mild mannered
Brontosaurus.
Who's to say certain creatures like the unicornoor centaur orelf didn't exist at one point in time? We don't know but it isn't wise to dismiss legends entirely. Sometimes there's more truth in legends than hin history, though.
Considering how much we have dug up from the past, with each passing day, each of these things becomes less and less probable. If we ever find a live Pixie or Pixie bones it will certainly be a sensation.
