garsy

Perchance wrote:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=769177

quote:
----------
'...unicorns could exist, they didn't die. They just moved into poetry.'
----------

a unicorn is fine in poetry -- or I should say, I would criticise its use in whatever poem used it in this day and age, for it could not be deemed by an author today to be 'real' other than for the purposes the poem.

Whereas in previous times the unicorn would be written about in terms of the possibility of truly having existed, if not still existing. I don't care to guess what such a poem could be like!
I doubt that would be the case today that the poet WOULD be making a case for the existence of a unicorn, at least it would not be taken seriously by most of us.

However, I can no more talk seriously about unicorns and the possibility of them existing as I can about pixies, although I can discuss them on the understanding that they do NOT exist. The Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. A great work of fiction, at that. Yet I am not able to get into argument with someone who might say that the characters are real in any true sense.

Yet, as an Atheist, I am quite able of discussing and giving my argument with a believer of God of the idiocy of the idea that a God can be.

Thus I acknowledge I am contaminated by Christianity and LIVE within its terms of reference, even though I do not believe in a God, and this is why, therefore, I do not feel as foolish refuting God as I would refuting the existence of pixies with one who believed in their existence.

Perchance

Believe me, I know the difference between fantasy and reality! I was talking here about what humans believe. People did believe in the existence of unicorns for a while. After they became convinced they didn't exist, they didn't simply abandon the symbol. And there's no reason that an atheist should have to abandon discussions of deity. That's what I meant.

"By most of us" is the key phrase. I have read poems written by people who believe unicorns are real. I used to regard this as very strange. Now, however, I regard it as no stranger than poetry writtten by people who still believe god is real. If the positions were switched, and people were indoctrinated to believe in unicorns while gods were commonly thought a symbol, I would still regard them in the same way.

I place it on three different levels:

1) Talking about fantasy.

2) Religious arguments. Here my opponent may believe a deity exists, and while I think they usually haven't thought through the arguments clearly enough, I am willing to listen to their points and what they have to say. I'm just not willing to convert.

3) Arguments of either type where, for whatever reason, I am not allowed to say what I really think ("Unicorns are symbols" or "I don't believe that gods exist"). These kinds of arguments get me frustrated, and both strike me as ridiculous.

For the record, my sister is a person who believes in both unicorns and gods.

Yes, I agree there's a double standard, and to some extent I feel it myself (that religious beliefs should be given special protection). But I am working on shedding the last remnants of that.

-Perchance.