More Recent Comments

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

When a theist starts a debate with an atheist ...

Also applies when a creationist starts a debate with a scientist ....

[Photo Credit: imgur]
[Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist]


  1. Looks like a stalemate to me. Eventually, one side (probably white) will not have a legal move to make.

  2. A pointless stalemate to boot. No kings.

  3. The only queen covering the board is Richard Dawkins.

  4. No king, no stalemate.

  5. "Looks like a stalemate to me. Eventually, one side (probably white) will not have a legal move to make."


    Once one (or more) queen(s) gets onto the white base line, they can take every pawn out without opposition - queens can attack from the side and behind; pawns can't.

    (If there is a technical stalemate, it'll be that there are no kings to trap and thence end the game in the usual way.)

  6. I've come up with an analogy of my own this evening, thanks to dealing with a particularly thick and intractable IDiot elsewhere.

    After being told for about the dozenth time why I was not pure enough of heart to see the evidence for ID—in lieu of actually presenting any, of course—I finally said that ID sounds much like spiritualism, where the medium is easily 'blocked' by 'hostile' (read: skeptical) persons in the room. Now when I see Behe, Wells, Dembski, or any of the other crowd, I'll be wondering whose job it is to handle the cheesecloth 'ectoplasm'.

  7. "End the game the usual way"? Chess either ends in checkmate, or some kind of draw. With no kings, there's no checkmate. So it can only be a draw. Maybe you're confusing it with the way to win at draughts?

  8. And even if one side wanted to resign, there's no way to do so.