Seriously...why are they always asking believers if since they believe in God...do they also believe in unicorns.
Well...why would it be so hard to believe in unicorns? It is a horse with a horn. We know there are horses and we know there are a animals with horns. Why is it so unbelievable to think unicorns may have existed in the past?
I don't know where I stand on the subject myself...not something I really care to put much thought into. I just find it amusing that that ahteists use unicorns...there are many other creatures to pick from that are less believable than unicorns...like a gryphon...or a sphinx.
Is it a secret code or something?
2007-12-10 09:41:16 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I always liked the cockatrices. They were interesting little things that would kill you with a glance.
2007-12-10 09:52:50 · answer #1 · answered by Tricia R 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Usually the question asked is regarding invisible pink unicorns. Now, if you are able to find it easy to believe that those existed, that wouldn't surprise me at all, actually. On the other hand, simply because horses exist and animals with horns exist, that's still quite a leap to say that it is possible that unicorns existed at one time. There is no evidence to say they did. People exist, and fish exist. Do you think that mermaids may have existed? Birds exist and horses exist. Did Pegasus exist? So yes, just because two things that, taken together, make another thing exist, that is no reason to believe that thing could have existed.
2007-12-10 09:49:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The unicorn reference may relate to Invisible Pink Unicorn, or IPU, who basically had the same role that the FSM has now a few years back. Belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn was supposed to be a parody religion, just like Pastafarianism, as it was essentially undisprovable, along with being a logical contradiction (being both invisible and pink).
Aside from that, it is just one of the more common fictional animals that our culture has been exposed to.
2007-12-10 09:45:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because unicorns are pretty :). Or because they're such a common, well-known figure in myths and fairy tales, and often considered somewhat childish. I think it puts religion on a level with bedtime stories and nursery rhymes. In that way, I think it's more insulting than a reference to sphinxes or something that's actually the subject of legitimate academic discussion amongst historians and mythologists.
2007-12-10 09:49:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's just another thing for which there is NO evidence.
If you believe in god, you may as well believe in unicorns, leprechauns, goblins, zombies...whatever.
Also, you should look up the invisible pink unicorn, similar in concept to the FSM.
2007-12-10 09:45:08 · answer #5 · answered by rbc_commish 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, its just that the Bible actually talks about unicorns and there isn't a shred of evidence there ever was any such thing.
It mentions dragons, and talking donkeys and snakes if unicorns aren't unbelievable enough for you.
2007-12-10 09:46:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If a unicorn is believable what makes a gryphon less believable?
2007-12-10 09:44:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
It all started with the invisible pink unicorn.
2007-12-10 09:46:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
"Unicorn" is easier to spell then "gryphon" or "sphinx" (I don't even know what a gryphon is).
No, seriously... The idea here is "equal evidence." That's all.
2007-12-10 09:44:43 · answer #9 · answered by skeptic 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It's not just ANY old unicorn. It's an invisible pink unicorn.
Big difference.
2007-12-10 09:45:17 · answer #10 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes it's a horse.. That evolved a horn on it's head!
Aha. Catch 22. We win.
2007-12-10 09:44:56 · answer #11 · answered by The Bassline Libertine 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋