I want to talk about atheism

[Plane]

In the respect that a narwhal is a sea creature and has no legs, no mane, and is similar only because it has a horn in its forehead.

Any one can easily see the difference.

Of course, a unicorn is imaginary,and a narwhal is not.

This has zero to do with the main discussion.

It is a single horn , for most of them, just as described  and examples of this horn labeled Unicorn exist in many curio cabinets.

Point being , it is a real thing , though not appearing as it does in artistic conception.

The truth is actually better than the legend in my opinion.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Unicorns are better than narwhals as imaginary symbols.
The Jesus that exists in the minds of most Christians is almost certainly better symbolically than the real Jesus.

[kimba1]

If I remember right manatee was mistaken for mermaids also

[Xavier_Onassis]

You have to be one really really seriously horny sailor to confuse a manatee with a mermaid, Or perhaps a visually impaired one.

[Plane]

Unicorns are better than narwhals as imaginary symbols.
The Jesus that exists in the minds of most Christians is almost certainly better symbolically than the real Jesus.

What do you think about the real Jesus?

The man that so much symbol was piled onto?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The real Jesus seems to have been altered into a very different individual by Paul. Paul never met the real Jesus, of course and Paul did not live in the same cultural milieu as the real Jesus. The Jesus  story in the NT could well have been written by four men (well, probably men, we cannot be sure) that also may have never met the real Jesus.  I do not actually buy the "son of God" bit, either.

[Plane]

Paul never met the real Jesus,

If you assume that the miraculous Jesus is not the real one.

of course and Paul did not live in the same cultural milieu as the real Jesus.

I don't know what you mean by this one.

The Jesus  story in the NT could well have been written by four men (well, probably men, we cannot be sure) that also may have never met the real Jesus.

Matthew, Mark , Luke , John?

I do not actually buy the "son of God" bit, either.

I assumed this .


    So there was a real Jesus?

     He had a real point?

[Xavier_Onassis]

There MAY HAVE BEEN a real Jesus. Perhaps more than one.
'
He did not fit the description of a Messiah. A Messiah is more of a reincarnation of the legend of King David than an actual Son of God. Jehovah does NOT mate with mortals in the Hebrew religion. The closest thing to a legitimate Messiah was Shimon Bar Kochkba. who organized the Jews and drove the Romans out of the territory, though unfortunately not permanently.

So I am agnostic about the actual existence of a Yeshua Bar Yosef. I am even more doubtful that he was the person described by the unknown writers who called themselves Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Note that Mark (Marcus) and Luke (Lucas) are Roman, not Hebrew names. The real Yeshua (Jesus) had almost no dealings with Gentiles like Romans.

Perhaps this was the real Yeshua's father:

http://www.reformation.org/jesus-son-of-tiberius-julius-pantera.html

[Xavier_Onassis]

Then there is DINKANISM:

https://www.facebook.com/DinkaConsciousness/

Be a Dinkanist!
Make Cutting the Cheese a spiritual experience!
Cheese be Upon You

[Xavier_Onassis]

Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/08/are-there-really-unicorns-in-the-king-james-bible.html

Naturally, the fundies claim that it really meant some sort of rhinoceros.

Fossils of actual unicorns have never been found.

No pegasi, either,

The Bible claims that bats are a type of bird.

[Plane]

  Why is it not a rhinoceros?

    How Horse like is a Hippopotamus?


( Hippo - horse  potamus- riverdwelling)

[Xavier_Onassis]

I understand the origin of the word "hippopotamus". It does not, however have a single thing to do with the existence of unicorns. The Bible is full of errors of fact like this, precisely the sort of errors that one would expect from untraveled, unstudious old shepherds --NOT anyone who is omniscient or even guided by an omniscient presence.

[Plane]

The people who wrote the Old Testament didn't live so far from Rinoseri  that their description needs to be doubted.
Ethiopians seemed to be visiting the middle east regularly, their description would have been first hand.
The guys who drew up the heraldry in which the unicorn looks something like a horse , were getting the description worse than third hand.   Perhaps you have a Eurocentric point of view and it seems to you unlikely that a lot of Europeans could be wrong about something that a few middle easterners might be right about.


I would also suppose that the Norse who could have seen the Narwhal alive or washed up on the beach didn't mistake it for a horse either.
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I found this to be droll: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/abletochoose/2016/03/they-were-afraid/?ref_widget=related&ref_blog=abletochoose&ref_post=was-jesus-insane-his-own-family-thought-so

[Xavier_Onassis]

Getting back to the issue of atheism, and kimba';s original question, I have found two places interesting.
youtube has a series of graphic (ie cartoons) in the site named darkmatter.com. They are quite well thought out and quote the Bible pretty accurately when a topic comes up.

and also friendlyatheist.com is a great place for thought pieces.

The youtube location will have many, many more discussions, by atheists, theists and dialogs between the two that I have noticed. Many more than I have time to investigate.