You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Love this image
The caption: When a theist starts a debate with an atheist…
Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.
We have to get past the bishops if we want to be queens…
Note that without any kings, neither side can win…
Theists have two ways around this problem:  Move their pawns as if they were queens, or  Unilaterally declare the game a draw.
Technically it’d have to be a draw, since there are no kings, and therefore no one can win (or lose).
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.
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)
That’s a completely stupid opening move
Next move: one less pawn on the board.
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.”
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.
To Americans, understated British mannerisms and confidence can seem like smugness, but it isn’t.
Geez, you don’t have to be so smug about it, Paul.
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.
“Somewhere” in The God Delusion, Dawkins
compares Jews praying at the Wailing Wall to
“demented parrots”. That’s not nice.
but is it smug?
Which atheist debating which theist? (Could make a difference.)
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.
Weak arguments in our opinion, not theirs, or (perhaps) that of a debate judge.
weaker arguments in reality
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Follow Patheos on