KA: This quote seems appropriate to you.

Well, it’s not.

Let me know how he is wrong…

How is he wrong? Let me count the ways…
1. I’m not a ‘new atheist’ or an ‘old atheist’, I’m just an atheist.
2. ‘New atheist’ is a coded label roughly translating to “those big meanies who won’t dance to our delusional tune’
3. I want evidence of your claims. I can’t repeat this often enough: bring proof. People lie & prevaricate.
4. People constantly confuse ‘open-mindedness’ w/the wide-eyed thickness of childhood innocence – “Oh REALLY?!?! Coooool…..tell me more.”
5. The title declaims presuppositionalism. (look up the definition and understand it this time)
6. Since religion is garbage, a professor of religion is a professor of garbage. So why should I listen to the sanitation engineer? Oh wait…I’m talking to the doof who willfully refuses to understand the Courtier’s Reply, & who insists that any opinion is an actual intellectual claim w/spine.
I could go on, but I’m actually running out of concern here…

“New Atheists also fume against the anti-intellectualism of religion. Yet when it comes to making their own case, these ‘brights’ don’t just mimc their fundamentalist opponents; they go them one better. Most people of faith harbor some doubt. But the supposedly open minds of New Atheists are so settled and sure that there is nary an opening in their invective for genuine conversation. Every refusal of a person of faith to come over to the atheist side is viewed not as a principled disagreement but as evidence of stupidity or malice or worse.” (Stephen Prothero, God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World)

I really don’t understand what is your problem…. Here is what I said:

Here is my problem:
A. I understand everything you’ve written – understanding does not result in agreement.
B. You are deliberately redefining the meaning of unicorn to suit your own purposes.
C. NOT EVERY OPINION IS VALID – otherwise we should entertain all the ‘gawd is an alien’ crazies, the bigfoot crazies, the YECs, the Truthers, the mormons, etc.
D. If you actually READ THE POST, it was illustrating a response to an individual’s departing from the mass’s delusion to create his own special version. The ‘metaphysical’ discussion of not being able to ‘un-prove’ (hopefully that illustrates how stupid that argument is) was a back story/sub plot, not the heart of the tale.

So you basically repeat what I just said and then try to insult me, and I am the one being obtuse?

No, I did a simple deconstruction & showed how your opinion floundered.

I don’t know what your problem is but you need to grow up and get over it…

Sorry, you have a right to your opinion even if it’s wrong, likewise I have the right to call it foolish if I deem it so.

I really don’t understand what is your problem…. Here is what I said:

“To call for an immaterial unicorn is to call for a material object that is also immaterial at the same time, which is a contradiction. Based on the law of non-contradiction, you cannot have something be and not be at the same time, there cannot be an immaterial unicorn.”

What’s your response to me:

“‘So when someone says that there exists a physical thing which isn’t physical then there is my argument.’

That’s called a contradiction, for those who aren’t knowledgeable about logic.”

“…Regardless, unicorns are mythical, they don’t exist, & your efforts @ a gedankenexperiment are fairly useless.
Still missing the point by a country mile.”

So you basically repeat what I just said and then try to insult me, and I am the one being obtuse? I don’t know what your problem is but you need to grow up and get over it…

Why do you need to be so abrasive?

I dunno…why do you need to be so obtuse?

So when someone says that there exists a physical thing which isn’t physical then there is my argument.

That’s called a contradiction, for those who aren’t knowledgeable about logic.

Because that is where it starts with someone making the claim that there exists a immaterial unicorn.

1. of no real importance; inconsequential
2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual
We’re going w/definition #2, then. By that definition, said unicorn is massively unprovable, & unless evidence can be produced, it’s a moot point.

I believe they are using a stipulative definition of unicorn not the dictionary’s.

Like most faitheists, you put too much stock in word manipulation.
Regardless, unicorns are mythical, they don’t exist, & your efforts @ a gedankenexperiment are fairly useless.
Still missing the point by a country mile.