Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

I think you're misunderstanding both the form and the point of the argument.The fundamental problem is this: how do we know what is real or not? The answer, I, and others have come to is that we look at the evidence and reach the best conclusions we can; with the inevitable condition that we never end up 100% certain and instead reach a spectrum of certainties from things we can treat as certain (e.g. I'm sitting on a chair, the earth goes round the sun, things evolved) and so can reason from to things we accept on the basis that they make most sense given what we know but cannot be taken as certain enough to build arguments from (e.g. alien life).The problem with Theism and Deism is that they want to take something that is at best in that last category and treat it as certain without any sound evidence. This violates the criteria that we only allow things into the 'can treat as certain' with good, solid evidence, and instead allow things in based purely on subjective faith. Well, that - as a methodology - is incapable of determining real things in the world from false things in the world; as is demonstrated by the silly examples - and while last thursdayism or the flying spaghetti monster may be invented examples they're not any different from real examples that people do believe or have believed.

Not all world views are equally defensible. Credibility is established by appeals to evidence; not to your world view. No, it's not. It's the argument you're responding to. You can't repeatedly ignore corrections to your position by bleating that they're off-topic. Unless you want to keep banging away at a strawman?

Why can't anyone stay on topic? Because RAZD has tried to define the topic is a way that is nonsensical. Rather than deal with the actual argument he is beating up a strawman and rejecting attempts to correct his misunderstanding of the argument by framing them as "off-topic".

I think that is one of the stupidest and most misleading "diagrams" I have ever seen. It should have the big grey bubble of all knowledge. Then there should be a decently size circle for science and a much smaller intersecting circle for philosophy inside it. Faith should be another circle which barely touches the circle for reality.Faith isn't another waying of knowing, if anything known by faith turns out to be true it's only by blind luck.Edited by Mr Jack, : Better subtitle