This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← King Me!

King Me! - Comments

Matt H.'s Avatar Comment 1 by Matt H.

This is especially true when arguing with creationists. I have seen many science advocates preparing lengthy, evidence and logic-based arguments and have all their work ignored in the response from the creationist, who usually recites Bible verses or uses the faith card.

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:51:00 UTC | #108017

Paula Kirby's Avatar Comment 2 by Paula Kirby

who usually recites Bible verses or uses the faith card.
Well, to be fair - that is all they've got to argue with!

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:59:00 UTC | #108019

LorienRyan's Avatar Comment 3 by LorienRyan

God can suspend the laws of chess and make a pawn move like a queen... it's a miracle!

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:08:00 UTC | #108021

Eventhorizon's Avatar Comment 4 by Eventhorizon

This is why Dawkins doesnt depate creationists. Also one doesnt want to - as Dawkins himself puts it so well - "give them the oxygen of credibility".
If anyone says to me that they are a creationist its the end of the conversation right there.
Or as Matt7895 put it, they play the faith card so talking themslves out of a rational conversation altogether.

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:23:00 UTC | #108030

Double Bass Atheist's Avatar Comment 5 by Double Bass Atheist

I recently posted on another thread about a debate last week with one of the many young earth creationists I work with. She said that she "does not believe in Neanderthal man." In my life I have had hundreds, perhaps thousands of debates with various creationists, but I've never heard that particular statement before! I tried to explain to her that this is obviously not a "belief". You can go to museums all over the world and view their bones, tools, etc. Her response was, "That's just your opinion."
My opinion??? Aaaaaagh!

Clearly some of these people are so deluded by their religion that logic and reason are just empty vessels.

I left my debate with the aforementioned YEC with the following comment:
"After all, why suffer from insanity? Become religious and enjoy every minute of it!"

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:35:00 UTC | #108034

HarryHUK's Avatar Comment 6 by HarryHUK

I have a born again christian friend who,whenever we debate issues of faith,simply smiles at me and says "you really don't understand,do you",to which I reply "no"

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:38:00 UTC | #108036

DavidJGrossman's Avatar Comment 7 by DavidJGrossman

That looks like a legal move. Yellow shirt guy jumped three of green shirt guy's checkers in one move (legal) and ended up in his home row where he could legitimately ask to be "kinged".

Just saying ...

- Dave

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:48:00 UTC | #108042

notsobad's Avatar Comment 8 by notsobad

Th worst thing is that otherwise reasonable people turn into infantile ignoramuses when debating their faith.

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:42:00 UTC | #108062

Ned Flanders's Avatar Comment 9 by Ned Flanders

It's a new version of the game, they call it "intelligent chess"

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:44:00 UTC | #108065

liddlefeesh's Avatar Comment 10 by liddlefeesh

"Well, those are YOUR interpetation of the rules. MY interpretation of the rules is different..."

reductio ad absurdium :(

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:58:00 UTC | #108069

athegan's Avatar Comment 11 by athegan

True...so true...nice allegory

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:12:00 UTC | #108081

uwaku's Avatar Comment 12 by uwaku

"That looks like a legal move. Yellow shirt guy jumped three of green shirt guy's checkers in one move (legal) and ended up in his home row where he could legitimately ask to be "kinged"."

DavidJGrossman, I DO hope you're being sarcastic. You did notice they're playing chess, not checkers, right?

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:49:00 UTC | #108097

pkruger's Avatar Comment 13 by pkruger

Arguing with a believer is like playing chess.


..yes, and as I have said before many times--
Like playing chess on a basketball

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:53:00 UTC | #108098

Satanburiedfossils's Avatar Comment 14 by Satanburiedfossils

Excerpt from "25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian":

"Without pointing to words, without relying on word associations, what can you tell me about God? If you can't tell me anything without refering back to word associations, then the word associations themselves—omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent—are meaningless since they also or composed of associations that cannot be proven and are nowhere in evidence. For example, what does it mean to say that God is omnipotent (all-powerful?) Is there really such a thing as omnipotence or does its very definition entail contradictions and paradoxes? This quote by Epicurus (341-270 BCE) clearly exemplifies the issue: "Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?"

It's almost like an elaborate con game is going on. The term 'God' is meaningless without the word associations, but the words used to make the associations are also meaningless since taken together they are inherently contrary, paradoxical, and still manage to beg the question. And isn't all doctrinal language just this way? You can't point to God, so you make word associations instead. You can't point to life-after-death, so you make word associations instead. You can't point to Satan, so you make word associations instead.

Without words, without making word associations, there would be no knowledge of the Soul or Heaven or Hell or Judgement Day or Eternal Life, etc. Even the notion of 'Sin' depends on word associations, for what is a 'sin' without the declaration of sin?"

http://www.control-z.com/pgs/why_no_longer.html

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:58:00 UTC | #108112

_J_'s Avatar Comment 15 by _J_

HarryHUK

I have a born again christian friend who,whenever we debate issues of faith,simply smiles at me and says "you really don't understand,do you",to which I reply "no"

So true.

Can I suggest adding: 'And neither do you. That's what worries me.'

I think I'd stop arguing with religious folks if they'd just admit that they really don't know. It's the pretending that they understand that buggers everything up.

Like our yellow-shirted 2D friend. If he'd just said 'How does a knight move again?' there'd be no depressingly true joke.

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:25:00 UTC | #108116

_J_'s Avatar Comment 16 by _J_

Satanburiedfossils

http://www.control-z.com/pgs/why_no_longer.html

Great link - but Jesu Christi, did that guy do a lot of work to realise that it don't make a jot o' sense.

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:34:00 UTC | #108118

JackR's Avatar Comment 17 by JackR

And of course, one tactic to use in this situation is to beat them at the change-the-rules game. The next frame of this cartoon should be the first guy hip-throwing the second and screaming IPPON, BIATCH! :-)

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:56:00 UTC | #108138

Mal3's Avatar Comment 18 by Mal3

This reminds me of another chess related joke regarding debates with creationists I read once...

"Arguing evolution with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over all the pieces, crap on the board, and then fly back to their flock, loudly proclaiming victory.

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:14:00 UTC | #108154

Big City's Avatar Comment 19 by Big City

Atheists are arrogant in thinking that the rules of chess are meant to be understood. Chess has its reasons.

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:35:00 UTC | #108156

daddydowse's Avatar Comment 20 by daddydowse

Not to be a grumpy old bugger, but i've had this in the forum for days!

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:24:00 UTC | #108183

NakedCelt's Avatar Comment 21 by NakedCelt

I disagree. There are ways and ways of arguing with believers.

The trouble is not that believers are irredeemably stupid. I used to be one, and I don't think my enlightenment involved my actually growing any new brain matter. The trouble is this:

I'm sure we've all been in the situation where we're arguing with someone and we just know they're wrong, but we can't quite verbalize the reason why they're wrong. If you stump a believer in a head-on argument, they simply assume that they are in that precise situation, and hand-wave it away.

No. There is a way, and it goes like this.

1. Distasteful as it may be, start out playing by the believer's rules.

2. Confine yourself to gaining one point per argument.

Recently, I was in a car with a friend of mine, who's a very decent, soft-spoken old gentleman who happens to believe in Lemuria, Atlantis, and things like that. Well, he happened to mention pole shifts.

Now, I could have started talking astronomy and basic physics, but (a) I don't have the facts ready to hand and (b) he'd have figured I'd been taken in by "orthodox science", and things would have ended up much like the characters in the comic strip.

Instead, I said: "Well, there certainly hasn't been a pole shift in the last few thousand years, because the Great Pyramid had a shaft leading from the central chamber aimed exactly at the present celestial North Pole." (Something I'd heard on a documentary somewhere.)

And he accepted it immediately.

That's how it's done.

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:26:00 UTC | #108184

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 22 by irate_atheist

15. Comment #113474 by Satanburiedfossils -

It's almost like an elaborate con game is going on.
Knock off the first three words and you have, of course, identified the issue. Self-delusion, mutual-delusion, call it what you will. A crock of shit held up for worship by liars and hypocrites.

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:22:00 UTC | #108201

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 23 by rod-the-farmer

A very long time ago I took a girl out to see a movie, who turned out to be a real faith-head, possibly a LDS type, I don't recall. On the long drive back to her house we talked about the universe, among other things. At one point I said something like "a star like our sun" and she immediately interrupted to say that our sun was different from the stars. When pressed to clarify this, she could not, just that it was different. It was a SUN, and those were STARS. I knew at that point that this was the proverbial "3 dates in one". First, last and only date. Oh Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me was NOT appropriate.

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:22:00 UTC | #108267

MaxD's Avatar Comment 24 by MaxD

Ippon! Hah. The hip-throw of reason? Tomoe nage of truth maybe? Tsurikomi ashi against obscurantism?
Sorry about the judo terminology here. Rawlinson inspired me.

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:25:00 UTC | #108269

pkruger's Avatar Comment 25 by pkruger

Rod-the-farmer:

she musta had little tits too.

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:43:00 UTC | #108481

MuNky82's Avatar Comment 26 by MuNky82

HarryHUK:
I have a born again christian friend who,whenever we debate issues of faith,simply smiles at me and says "you really don't understand,do you",to which I reply "no"


Just add that there is nothing to understand, but being deluded is what worrying you.

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:02:00 UTC | #108565

Marc Weeks's Avatar Comment 27 by Marc Weeks

I have read about creationists getting hammered in debates regarding things like transitional forms, etc., and then moving on to the next town, the next debate, and repeating the same arguments!

I guess at some point they must have decided that if they can't persuade fence-sitters or those on our side that EVILution is blasphemy, they'll content themselves merely with preventing defections from their own ranks.

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:27:00 UTC | #108698

LiseYates's Avatar Comment 28 by LiseYates

Nice analogy. I dig.

Tue, 06 May 2008 15:54:00 UTC | #167156