The Good News About Unicorns

Discussion in 'Religion, Beliefs and Spirituality' started by Accident Hero, Jan 17, 2014.

  1. #1 Accident Hero, Jan 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2014
    Why don't unicorns have two horns?

    It's a ridiculous question, but you have to kind of accept the premise of the unicorn to make that judgement.  If you think there just aren't unicorns, then the question is not ridiculous but just unreasonable.  You don't need to answer why the unicorn doesn't have horns because you don't have a reason to believe the subject exists in the first place.

    When you see the question and realize the premise is shaky, it pisses off the people who would ask it of you.  They don't really care about the answer, but they do care that you accept the premise.  If you give any nonsense as the answer to why a unicorn doesn't have two horns, you're open minded.  You accepted the premise.  They like you.  

    When you don't buy into the premise, they wonder what your agenda is.  They accuse you of having your own premise, even though you don't - all you did is point out the question is flawed.  And all the unicorn people commiserate about what a shame it is that there are such anti-unicorn people out there.  Some more openly than others but most of them end up looking down on you in some way for failing to grasp the "obvious," and buying into the anti-unicorn agenda.  You don't even have to think it's a silly premise.  

    Now there are people around who are shamed by the unicorn people.  Maybe there are just unicorn people pretending to be non-unicorn people.  Either explanation works, and the result is non-unicorn people who hate non-unicorn people.  They point fingers, and scream "you're anti-unicorn!  I'm not one of you - I'm NON-unicorn!"  As if it was a crime somehow and they might be tainted by association.  Now there are people actively trying to subvert what it means to not buy the premise of unicorns.  This is how far that unicorn propaganda reaches... even into the non-unicorn ranks.

    What is God made of?

    Neverminding the foolishness of some of the resulting questions, the mysteries of metaphysics might be nonsensical to start with.

    Where did everything come from?  The question assumes the answer (ie. something), the responses are supposed to give the answer a name.  It's a pointless question that is built on the assumption that the answer to a more foundational question ("Is there a source?") is true.  Might as well be asking why unicorns don't have two horns, or which NFL team called the Seahawks is the best NFL team.

    Is there something outside the universe?  Better question: if there was, how the fuck would we ever know?  And then there are follow-ups!  Is god there?  Did everything come from there?  Does the god in that realm play checkers?

    Where do people go when they die?  You mean, other than where we put them?  Oh, you mean that place outside the universe you were asking about.  Say, did you ever figure out how we'd know if that place is real?  No?  Hm, okay.  Oh, follow-ups.  Is god there?  Is it a nice god with fluffy clouds or an evil god with a flaming pitchfork?
    Where is the place you go to when you are outside your body?  It's gotta be outside your body, you always travel to other places.  It can't be inside your body, in the depths of dream and imagination for surely the human mind isn't capable of producing such grandeur.  Right, people from all over the planet?
    I don't bother myself with this supposed mystery.  I don't need to wonder why unicorns don't have two horns, because I didn't buy the premise of the question in the first place.  That's why I'm alright with not having the answer.  Creating an answer involves making too many assumptions to feel satisfied with the result.
    It is not a crime to be a non-unicorn person.  It's alright to be an atheist.  There's no crime in the association, just as there is no crime in being a fan of the same book author as some scumbag you know.  And the definition of an atheist?  All you really have to do is pick up a dictionary - any dictionary - to see that the following statements are true.

    What is an atheist?

    Someone who didn't buy the premise of the question (or someone who wasn't listening when it was asked).  No wall of words here, it's this simple.

    If you believe there is no god, you are an atheist.  You can also be called an anti-theist.

    If you aren't sure if there is a god, you are an atheist.  You can also be called an agnostic.

    If you don't care if there is a god, you are an atheist.  You can also be called an apatheist.

    If you don't like the label, you've got no one to blame but yourself.  There is nothing wrong with the word.
    What is your agenda?
    ps. It's totally okay with me if y'all just want a place to shoot the shit.
  2. Fuck, there's so many things wrong with this. Whatever. Don't want to get into a philosophical debate, we all know what the point of this was.
  3. Beautifully put, AH. :)
  4. Haters gon' hate. :)  That's why I only see your words when they're quoted my friend.
    The point was pretty clear.  See the last two sections.  I'm not trying to be coy.
  5. #5 pickledpie, Jan 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2014
    What haters, I just saw room for philosophical debate, but chose not to pursue. Someone quote this for our friend.
  6. Unicorns do exist.  The universe is infinite, there are infinite dimensions, everything exists everywhere.  The fact that you can think about it proves it's reality.  Absent of experience does not equal absent of existence.
    Non existence does not exist.  You cannot cease to exist when you die.  Surely you can perceive nothingness, but you will still exist.
  7. If it had two horns it would be a duocorn
  8. #8 Accident Hero, Jan 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2014
    The fact that you can think about non-existence proves it's a reality.  Absence of experience does not equal absence of existence.  It's rather entertaining to watch someone speak of the non-existence of non-existence. 
    This is a perfect example of the kinds of premises I reject before answering questions based on them.
    Also, who said you cease to exist when you die?  You continue to exist.  Your personality will continue for as long as the machine facilitating it does.  To suggest that your personality will survive brain death is like saying that the wheels of a car will continue powered rotation after the engine runs out of gas and stops running.
    I won't even bother telling you that's impossible.  If you're saying it is possible, I'd like you to give me a reason to believe you, or at least tell others who mistreat me for not believing you to cut it out.
  9. if you can contemplate your own existence, certainly you must exist.
  10. Indeed, but you may be nothing more than someone else's dream.
    Sublime truth, most apt to be learned by learned men abound.
    You should think about what non-existence is before you go about saying things. This is a very deep subject and your superficiality misleads you.
    Someone? If we are someone's or something's dream, then we are that someone or something. We create our own dream. We are one being.
  14. What the fuck is this kid on?
  15. This is all really trippy....
  16. there is no non-physical experience; the complete manifestation of the universe as the cosmos and cosmic memory is tangible. you may not be able to hold a thought in your hand (yet) but, you can still feel it going in the mind. eternal energy; infinite potential.
    ^ This is why I love GrassCity... :smoking:
  18. Is it possible to conceptualize non-existence. Or are we just equating it to the idea of a lack of something. Which itself is entirely impossible to conceptualize unless something exists to compare it to.
    Non existence does not exist.  If you read these words correctly, it will make perfect sense.  It's like a riddle.
    Nothing is nothing.  So you cannot be nothing.  You cannot become something from nothing as you cannot become nothing from something.
    It's a matter of negatives.
    As I said, we can conceptualize nothingness as an idea of perhaps complete eternal darkness.  But we cannot perceive nothing.
  20. absolute nothingness; an 'area' of continuity with no change, decay or death, just pure static permeating in every direction, illuminating all evenly and throughout. no time, no differences.. no nothing; an eternal plateau of silence. semantics.

Share This Page