What's wrong with believing in unicorns? I do!

[cnorman18]

I believe in unicorns!

Unicorns were and are real creatures, and I can present objective and verifiable proof of their existence!

Atheists and nontheists are hereby informed that they must henceforth choose another mythical creature to compare to God. It would appear that unicorns are quite real and may once have even been common, and a few may even exist today. Some certainly existed quite recently, since they were publicly exhibited less than thirty years ago.

First, though unicorns are commonly thought to be horses with a single spiral horn extending from their heads, horses do not fit the description that is given in the classic legends.

Consider: besides the horn, unicorns are also said to have cloven (divided) hooves, plumed tails, and beards. While none of these are characteristic of horses, they are characteristic of another domestic animal--the goat.

As a clincher, one way to capture a unicorn is said to be to have a "pure," or virgin, young woman sit down on the ground; it is said that the unicorn will then approach her and sit in her lap.

I used to raise horses. Trust me on this; you do not want a horse to sit in your lap. A goat would be tolerable; a horse would cause serious physical injury.

Here are the facts:

It is possible to transplant the horn buds on a young goat to the center of its forehead, where they will heal, remain attached to the skull, and develop into a single horn; if properly placed, the two horns will even fuse in a spiral shape. This can be done easily, even with primitive tools.

The resulting horn extends straight outward, instead of curving back, and thereby becomes a lethal weapon. When the goat rams another creature, instead of resulting in a relatively harmless, though painful, "butting" effect, as happens on the impact of the sides of backward-curving horns, the single straight horn will penetrate deeply.

The animal can also throw the momentum of its full speed and weight into the piercing attack, instead of having to toss its head and use its relatively weak neck muscles alone when attempting to attack with the points of curving horns on the sides of it head.

It has been hypothesized that in ancient times, male goat kids were altered in this fashion to serve as natural guardians of the herd; and that such creatures gave rise to the unicorn legends of medieval times.

This does not seem beyond the realm of possibility, since similar animals have been created much more recently; one was regularly exhibited as a "Living Unicorn" by the world's best-known circus, the Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey organization, as recently as 1980. It did, in fact, have a single spiral horn extending from its forehead, which was quite real and made of living bone firmly attached to the creature's skull.

I therefore can quite confidently proclaim that I believe in unicorns, and can present objective and verifiable evidence for their existence.

Here are a couple of references that prove my contentions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn

http://www.lair2000.net/Unicorn_Dreams/ ... _made.html

Now, I will admit that I do not believe in invisible pink unicorns; but that makes no logical sense anyway.

How can a creature that is invisible also be pink?

[cnorman18]

OP

1. Was the horn of the RBB&B organization tested by independent scientists?

Yes, it was; and it was found to be living tissue and not a prosthesis.

2. Did it, or do the Unicorns you claim exist have magic blood? Unicorns, as every TRUE Unicorn Believer knows, have magical blood. If it doesn't have magical blood it's just a horse with a deformity.

Or a goat.

I didn't say they were magical unicorns; just your ordinary, mundane, normal everyday unicorns.

I have to wonder; how would "magical blood" be distinguishable from ordinary blood? Would it glow, or sparkle, or heal wounds, or what?

And why blood? Why not magical skin, or eyeballs, or hoofs?

I think the closest thing to a magical creature that I've ever seen was a cat that knew how to ring a doorbell.

And a girl I once knew...

But that story is for another kind of website.

I believe the consensus of leading Unicorn authorities say that the magical blood heals wounds, even resurrects the dead. However, there is a penalty - you will have a curse on your life, because the only way to get the magic from the blood is to kill the unicorn. There have been unverified reports of people curing minor wounds and gingivitis from accidental blood left on thorns and from fights with badgers.

Well, of course there are.

I mean, the first thing I do when I see a blob of gelid, half-clotted blood hanging from a thorn in the woods is immediately grab it and smear it on my gums. Don't you? Might be unicorn blood. You never know...

(Gingivitis? Yeesh. Who makes up this stuff?)

[McCulloch]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but one doesn't. One studies theology to learn what others have said on the subject, and to come to one's own conclusions.

In all other fields of study, you learn what others have said on the subject, yes, but there is a presumption that underneath the layers of study and analysis there is something real. In every other field of study, there is a possibility to do primary research. Someone can observe a new subatomic particle, write a great work of fiction, cure a disease, find a star, invent a gizmo or even make history. And behind all of the study and what other say on the subject, it all goes back to someone who discovered a physical principle, improved on a genre, observed the workings of anatomy, measured the stars, harnessed electricity and negotiated peace. Not so in Theology. You can only study what other people say. There is no more.

Theologians and students of theology spend little, if any, time trying to prove that God exists. It is assumed, and rather justly, I think, that if one were in doubt about that issue, one would not be engaged in theological study.

And here I was thinking that apologetics was a field of theology. Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding.

Personally, I don't think it particularly proper or appropriate to dictate what others may or may not be permitted to think and talk about. If you're not interested in speculation about God, you shouldn't be engaged in theological study. And that's about as far as I think anyone really has the right to go.

People should be allowed to speculate about Gods and unicorns. The difference is that one of these speculations is dignified by being called a legitimate form of academic study.

I personally think that professional sports are a colossal waste of time and an even more colossal waste of money, that they teach young people horrible values and priorities, and that their effect on society in general is much more negative than positive; but my expression of those convictions is limited to the fact that I do not watch them or give a rat's butt about who's going to the Super Bowl. If another person wishes to waste his time in that fashion, he is free to do so. I can express my views, and I do, but is it my place to tell another person to throw away his Cowboys posters and T-shirts and take up stamp collecting? I think not.

I would be happy to put Theology in the same category as professional sports and other forms of entertainment.

Could it be that theology is just collective daydreaming?

Those who engage in it don't think so, and those who do think so aren't involved in the field; and therefore their opinions to that effect are irrelevant to it. Isn't that pretty much how everything works?

Not quite. Those who do not engage in engineering, assess how useful engineering is and fund it appropriately. Theology, like other forms of entertainment, is simply collective daydreaming.

I would think that one's involvement in ANY field of study or activity, whether it be theology, psychology, medicine, auto mechanics, astrology or building ships in bottles, would begin with and be motivated by the belief that that activity is somehow worthwhile and not wholly futile or meaningless.

Or just fun.

[cnorman18]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but one doesn't. One studies theology to learn what others have said on the subject, and to come to one's own conclusions.

In all other fields of study, you learn what others have said on the subject, yes, but there is a presumption that underneath the layers of study and analysis there is something real.

Try to remember that theologians think that that is true of theology, too.

In every other field of study, there is a possibility to do primary research. Someone can observe a new subatomic particle, write a great work of fiction, cure a disease, find a star, invent a gizmo or even make history. And behind all of the study and what other say on the subject, it all goes back to someone who discovered a physical principle, improved on a genre, observed the workings of anatomy, measured the stars, harnessed electricity and negotiated peace. Not so in Theology. You can only study what other people say. There is no more.

Just as in philosophy, no?

Theologians and students of theology spend little, if any, time trying to prove that God exists. It is assumed, and rather justly, I think, that if one were in doubt about that issue, one would not be engaged in theological study.

And here I was thinking that apologetics was a field of theology. Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding.

(Sarcasm? From a moderator? Surely not!)

That field is of little interest to me, since apologetics are not a part of Jewish theology. But given that Christianity has among its tenets the "Great Commission," to convince others of the truth of the Gospel (there is nothing analogous in Judaism), it follows, of course, that there is a subgenre of Christian theology that studies how best to do that. Those who are involved in that field, though, are still already Christians.

Another note on apologetics later.

Personally, I don't think it particularly proper or appropriate to dictate what others may or may not be permitted to think and talk about. If you're not interested in speculation about God, you shouldn't be engaged in theological study. And that's about as far as I think anyone really has the right to go.

People should be allowed to speculate about Gods and unicorns. The difference is that one of these speculations is dignified by being called a legitimate form of academic study.

And what is wrong with that?

Try to remember, too, that your opinion in these matters is not the only opinion.

I personally think that professional sports are a colossal waste of time and an even more colossal waste of money, that they teach young people horrible values and priorities, and that their effect on society in general is much more negative than positive; but my expression of those convictions is limited to the fact that I do not watch them or give a rat's butt about who's going to the Super Bowl. If another person wishes to waste his time in that fashion, he is free to do so. I can express my views, and I do, but is it my place to tell another person to throw away his Cowboys posters and T-shirts and take up stamp collecting? I think not.

I would be happy to put Theology in the same category as professional sports and other forms of entertainment.

I'm sure you would. Others would not. Some would not even put sports in that category. To them, it is somehow as vital as the news and the weather.

Could it be that theology is just collective daydreaming?

Those who engage in it don't think so, and those who do think so aren't involved in the field; and therefore their opinions to that effect are irrelevant to it. Isn't that pretty much how everything works?

Not quite. Those who do not engage in engineering, assess how useful engineering is and fund it appropriately.

And others who do not engage in theology, e.g. the members of congregations that will be taught and led by the ministers or rabbis trained at schools of theology, assess how useful theology is and fund those schools appropriately through their contributions.

Theology, like other forms of entertainment, is simply collective daydreaming.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. So are others who disagree. Do not mistake either for a fact.

I would think that one's involvement in ANY field of study or activity, whether it be theology, psychology, medicine, auto mechanics, astrology or building ships in bottles, would begin with and be motivated by the belief that that activity is somehow worthwhile and not wholly futile or meaningless.

Or just fun.

Granted. But if you think anyone engages in serious theological study for "fun," I would observe once again that you apparently know little about it. Have a taste; plow your way through Karl Barth's Die Kirchliche Dogmatik in its infelicitous and difficult English translation, then tell me how much "fun" it was. I'll even make it easy on you: the first of its twelve volumes will do, the required reading that I was assigned in Dr. Ogden's Systematic Theology class. That was less "fun" than any class I have ever taken, and I've taken a lot.

Speaking of apologetics; it occurs to me that perhaps atheism and non-theism ought to consider developing an "apologetics" department of their own. You wouldn't know it from the theists around here, but most liberal Christian denominations, between daydreams and fantasies, have figured out that a smug, supercilious, and superior attitude, along with derision, ridicule, mockery, and thinly veiled insults, are not terribly convincing or productive tactics in evangelism. How odd that the flawlessly logical, rational and intelligent non-theist crowd has not yet picked up on that.

[McCulloch]

In all other fields of study, you learn what others have said on the subject, yes, but there is a presumption that underneath the layers of study and analysis there is something real.

Try to remember that theologians think that that is true of theology, too.

No doubt they do. But I contend that this belief is false.

In every other field of study, there is a possibility to do primary research. Someone can observe a new subatomic particle, write a great work of fiction, cure a disease, find a star, invent a gizmo or even make history. And behind all of the study and what other say on the subject, it all goes back to someone who discovered a physical principle, improved on a genre, observed the workings of anatomy, measured the stars, harnessed electricity and negotiated peace. Not so in Theology. You can only study what other people say. There is no more.

Just as in philosophy, no?

With the difference that while philosophy also has no primary research, neither does it postulate incorporeal beings that care about whether certain humans do or do not eat pork.

Theologians and students of theology spend little, if any, time trying to prove that God exists. It is assumed, and rather justly, I think, that if one were in doubt about that issue, one would not be engaged in theological study.

And here I was thinking that apologetics was a field of theology. Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding.

(Sarcasm? From a moderator? Surely not!)

You caught me. I did forget the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags.

That field is of little interest to me, since apologetics are not a part of Jewish theology. But given that Christianity has among its tenets the "Great Commission," to convince others of the truth of the Gospel (there is nothing analogous in Judaism), it follows, of course, that there is a subgenre of Christian theology that studies how best to do that. Those who are involved in that field, though, are still already Christians.

That's one thing I like about your Theology. It does not seem to care if it is right. However, although apologetics is a field of theology of little interest to you, it is still a field of theology.

People should be allowed to speculate about Gods and unicorns. The difference is that one of these speculations is dignified by being called a legitimate form of academic study.

And what is wrong with that?

Do you think that publicly funded universities should have degrees in unicorn husbandry? Why then do they grant degrees in Theology?

Try to remember, too, that your opinion in these matters is not the only opinion.

This is a debate forum. I am not allowed to forget that. But thanks for the reminder.

I would be happy to put Theology in the same category as professional sports and other forms of entertainment.

I'm sure you would. Others would not. Some would not even put sports in that category. To them, it is somehow as vital as the news and the weather.

I thought that was what you were doing. It is a topic for another debate (not religious), but it seems to me that professional sports as a is a branch of entertainment.

Could it be that theology is just collective daydreaming?

Those who engage in it don't think so, and those who do think so aren't involved in the field; and therefore their opinions to that effect are irrelevant to it. Isn't that pretty much how everything works?

Not quite. Those who do not engage in engineering, assess how useful engineering is and fund it appropriately.

And others who do not engage in theology, e.g. the members of congregations that will be taught and led by the ministers or rabbis trained at schools of theology, assess how useful theology is and fund those schools appropriately through their contributions.

How can theology be useful? Entertaining perhaps, but useful? This is not to say that those trained in Theology may not have other useful skills; conflict resolution, counseling, fund raising ...

Theology, like other forms of entertainment, is simply collective daydreaming.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. So are others who disagree. Do not mistake either for a fact.

If you disagree, would you show me in what way Theology is different from other forms of entertainment?

I would think that one's involvement in ANY field of study or activity, whether it be theology, psychology, medicine, auto mechanics, astrology or building ships in bottles, would begin with and be motivated by the belief that that activity is somehow worthwhile and not wholly futile or meaningless.

Or just fun.

Granted. But if you think anyone engages in serious theological study for "fun," I would observe once again that you apparently know little about it. Have a taste; plow your way through Karl Barth's Die Kirchliche Dogmatik in its infelicitous and difficult English translation, then tell me how much "fun" it was. I'll even make it easy on you: the first of its twelve volumes will do, the required reading that I was assigned in Dr. Ogden's Systematic Theology class. That was less "fun" than any class I have ever taken, and I've taken a lot.

I'll pass. The point is not whether the student of theology believed that it was useful but whether or not it could be shown to be useful in fact.

Speaking of apologetics; it occurs to me that perhaps atheism and non-theism ought to consider developing an "apologetics" department of their own.

Good idea. I'll suggest it to the Archpope of Atheists as soon as she finishes her unicorn ride.

You wouldn't know it from the theists around here, but most liberal Christian denominations, between daydreams and fantasies, have figured out that a smug, supercilious, and superior attitude, along with derision, ridicule, mockery, and thinly veiled insults, are not terribly convincing or productive tactics in evangelism.

The difficulty seems to be that while they know what does not work, they haven't yet mastered what does work.

How odd that the flawlessly logical, rational and intelligent non-theist crowd has not yet picked up on that.

Quite so. You have to admit that many of the atheist authors from Ingersoll and Russell to Dawkins and Harris do show more than a little superior attitude, derision and ridicule. I have not noticed thinly veiled insults, but that might be that seeing it from my perspective has obscured my view.

[FinalEnigma]

If I run across any evidence that leprechauns or pixies are real, I'll be sure to post that, too.

Real pixies--now THAT would be cool....

Well, she's not a pixie, but is it alright if i believe in one particular fairy?

[officer2002]

I have read a quote from Ceasar that the size of a Unicorn is the same as an Ox and they have a mean disposition. That sounds like a Rhino to me. Some of them have two horn but when it is running at you, you will only see one horn because the front horn is larger than the back horn.