Our Side is Stacked

Love this image :)

The caption: When a theist starts a debate with an atheist…

(via Reddit)

"I stopped by tbe one that used to be in one of the local plazas ..."

This is Why Liberty Counsel’s “Naughty ..."
"You are the one that revealed your ignorance in any kind of history, and that ..."

This Pastor Thinks He Disproved Evolution ..."
"Start with the 9th Doctor, Eccleston. He only has 1 season, but important."

Another Roy Moore? Christian Right Judge ..."
"I am tempted to say who cares what a moribund institution does, if it is ..."

Why Pope Francis Wanting to Change ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Elerena

    We have to get past the bishops if we want to be queens…

  • Anne Sauer

    Note that without any kings, neither side can win…

  • Jeff Dale

    Theists have two ways around this problem:
    [1] Move their pawns as if they were queens, or
    [2] Unilaterally declare the game a draw.

  • Spencer

    Technically it’d have to be a draw, since there are no kings, and therefore no one can win (or lose).

  • Chas

    Every time you move a piece forward, they will declare you do that because of “Great Pawn” even though you won’t admit it. Moving in any other direction is sinful, but the “Great Pawn” loves you despite your direction. Pawns win as you upend the board.

  • Sulris Campbell

    why are we queens and them pawns? that seems arbitrary.  they could take the same picture and just reverse the caption.  in fact anyone could post this picture with any caption against a group they didn’t like….

    lets get a better run down on the pieces

    bishops = theists  (they are called bishops after all)

    queens = lgbt community (they are the most powerful counterculture movement)

    knight = PETA  (they keep going in wierd directions… porn? really…?)

    pawn = the tea party (for being the pawns manipulated by buisnesses and religions)

    rook =  Obama (becuase you can never use your rooks becuase they are always trapped behind your own damn pawns)

    king = skeptics (relatively powerless, but if you lose us it’s the dark ages all over again)

  • Anonymous

    That’s a completely stupid opening move

  • http://religiouscomics.net/ Jeff P

    Next move:  one less pawn on the board.

  • Rich Wilson

    Meh.  I just hear all the things theists say about Dawkins being arrogant.  And I see bumper stickers that say “God said it, that settles it, whether you believe it or not.”

  • kaileyverse

    I’m an atheist and I respect Dawkins – but I do think he is a little smug, and can be quite arrogant.  Not that people of faith can’t be or aren’t arrogant, but it happens on the secular/agnostic/atheist/humanist side as well.

  • Paul D.

    To Americans, understated British mannerisms and confidence can seem like smugness, but it isn’t.

  • Venture Free

    Geez, you don’t have to be so smug about it, Paul.

  • Sulris Campbell

    haha! touche.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

    I think “smug Dawkins” is an urban myth, he’s like  Bigfoot in that I hear him talked about but when I ask for a video clip, or a link it never seems to show up.

    I have seen a lot of clips of Dawkins giving talks. He’s polite, and far more gracious than I could manage to be in similar circumstances.

    I guess what they mean by smug might be that he is confident that the facts are on his side.

    But I suspect the whole thing is a successful propaganda meme and we really need to stand up and refuse to buy into it.

    If Dawkins is so smug then it should be easy to find video evidence. When I made those requests I should have been innundated. But actually nobody has ever (so far) followed up with a single link.

    It’s easy to rant around the dinner table that Dawkins is smug or “strident” but it seems like it is harder to back it up.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/DJRVGKGG36KNLNMZAVT4EXOF3M Ed-words

    “Somewhere” in The God Delusion, Dawkins 

    compares Jews praying at the Wailing Wall to

    “demented parrots”. That’s not nice.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

    but is it smug?

  • Trace


  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/DJRVGKGG36KNLNMZAVT4EXOF3M Ed-words

    Which atheist debating which theist?
    (Could make a difference.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

    not really, in the same way as the chessboard doesn’t say how skilled the players are at chess. The theist has relatively weak limited arguments to marshal.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/DJRVGKGG36KNLNMZAVT4EXOF3M Ed-words

    Weak arguments  in our opinion, not theirs,
    or (perhaps) that of a debate judge.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

    weaker arguments in reality

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/DJRVGKGG36KNLNMZAVT4EXOF3M Ed-words

    Whose reality?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

    “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”

    we are all in the same reality. It is not that I live in a godless universe while the theist lives in a supernatural one. We both live in the same universe.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/DJRVGKGG36KNLNMZAVT4EXOF3M Ed-words

    I  used the word ‘reality’ once,
    after you used it.

    How theists perceive the universe is their reality, their world.
    Some  elements of it can be proven wrong by science or history,
    others will be forever debated.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Macker/518709704 Brian Macker

    I think this picture perfectly illustrates that old phrase, “You can’t win a argument with a crazy person.”   Going by the rules of chess it appears that both sides have lost [their king] before the game has even started.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

    so many people keep bringing up the king, but I think the lack of a king makes the match more comlete. The theists in particular cannot have a king (or a king of kings) because we cannot disprove a negative.

    Which makes it a game of attrition, knocking down arguments.

    And, to join in on the pedantry, if white has no pieces left on the board while black does, surely that counts as a victory? We can take all their weak arguments down.