RicOlie_2

Atheism isn't a religion, but many atheists are arguably religious (I mean aside from Buddhists, etc.).

There we go. Thanks.

Diagram:

r---k--r

ppp---pp

--nb--q-

----pb--

--------

--NPBQ--

PPP--P-P

--KR--NR

Thanks. The latter bit would be a question for ender, since it's the program both he and I are using.

The double "yeah" would work if two different shots were used. But since they're pretty much duplicate shots right now, it doesn't work as well.

Just to make sure I have this right, Warbler is castling queen-side. Is that correct? And how do you castle in Zillions?

I think a lot of atheists are religious and unfortunately for those who aren't, religious people (who belong to organized religions) lump all atheists together.

February 3:

A.D. 1451: Mehmed II inherits the Ottoman sultanate.

A.D. 1690: First paper money in America is issued.

A.D. 1870: The 15th Amendment to the U.S. constitution is passed, emancipating black slaves.

Well done Frink, well done. One thing though--at 19:47, Shatner (not having seen the movie, I only know the actor) says "close off the bridge" when I believe he should be saying "tower." Unless I misunderstood something, there's no bridge, only a tower.

Gee, I wrote that so badly you thought I might be serious?! :(

darth_ender said:

Not sure what you mean.  Sx2iv+L

...

 I mean that my king was pinned and I could only move my rook to take your piece. Since I only had one available move, you could have just called it and saved time. It doesn't matter though.

Bx3ii

TV's Frink said:

lol at King Example.

 I know--it was honestly the best I could come up with at the time. :P I must have been tired.

ray_afraid said:

Doh.. hold on...

Fixed?

 Yes.

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

[...stuff...]

Apologies, it was just an odd usage of the word. Most people would have said it differently when using it to refer to the first definition. I just misunderstood, that's all.

^ The first is what it means, the second is what you believe it to mean. You keep suggesting I and others have made silly "mistakes" in our posts which comes across as quite patronising (Especially when you are infact incorrect yourself), I'm sure it is not your intent to do so. I let it go the first few times but thought it time to mention that.

You may not realize it, but you have come across as being condescending and patronizing a few times. You have also been wrong about some things regarding religion. I don't mean that to sound/look condescending, but please realize that both of us are doing the same things.

 Apologies if I come of like that, it's not my intent either. I tend to pepper my arguments with a little humour, even light sarcasm but it is meant in jest (Gives a debate some zest IMO). But there is a subtle difference between poking a bit of fun at the content of somebody's argument and suggesting that somebody lacks the basic language skills to make that argument.

The best of us are guilty of that. Humour tends to come across badly over the internet. In the heat of a debate, things can be taken more personally than normal, or things you say might seem OK from your perspective, but appear rude to the other person.

RicOlie_2 said:

This is the kind of story that only confirms my belief in the non-existence of God.

 I don't think it is evidence against God's existence. I think it is evidence, albeit weak, for the existence of God.

For me, it is a story of the kind of crazy stuff the human mind can dream up when it is pushed to the limits. If it was a story of a totally rational and sober man seeing Angels, it would be less easy to dismiss.

[story]

 Exactly, that story is less easy for me to dismiss or explain. I still don't believe it and am sure there must be a rational explanation somewhere in there if I had more information like Doctor's notes, pathologist's reports, a library of similar case notes, patient history, multiple witness testimonies, a degree in medicine etc etc.

 It is certainly impossible to refute some purported miracles, and equally hard to prove they happened. I choose to accept many of them, but you choose to believe there is a natural explanation. Both work, I guess, but each side shouldn't be too quick to dismiss the other.

Leonardo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Leonardo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Using that logic, it's pretty easy to realise that since Angels are impossible, there are hundreds of possible explanations.

Except that there is absolutely no way to determine whether Angels are impossible.

 Yeah, same for mermaids, leprechauns, and unicorns. People claim to have seen them.

Oh, but they're not real!

There's a difference between saying something is not real and saying it is impossible.

Potato potato. (really doesn't work in writing ;P )

Alright, impossible. Angels are supposed to be supernatural beings, right? No such thing as the supernatural. There. Impossible.

I think it's pointless debating this, but it is only your belief that the supernatural does not exist, as it is mine that it does.

RicOlie_2 said:

...

So, you're totally ok with a man of faith basically saying to his doctor:

- "hey, fuck you, you did nothing for me, the Lord saved me with a miracle!"

- "but we healed you, we put you back together, we gave you iv drips.."

- "magical man came and gave me a shock in the forehead, and my intestines grew back. and no thanks to you!!"

If I was the doctor in question I would fight really hard against my instincts to punch him in the kisser!

 I am absolutely not OK with someone saying that. That man didn't say anything like that. He didn't deny the doctors' role, but instead just didn't mention it. Let's use an analogy of the opposite scenario (someone being killed in ancient times). King Example orders the death of Joe. Executioner Bob kills Joe. Would you say King Example or Executioner Bob was responsible for Joe's death? One of Joe's friends later talks about how wrong King Example was to kill Joe. Would you say Joe's friend isn't giving Executioner Bob enough credit for Joe's death?

Bad analogy, I know, but hopefully it is good enough that you can grasp the gist of what I'm trying to say.

 I don't understand your analogy, sorry.

 That's OK, it wasn't a very good or clear one. My point is just that a person can credit someone with an action that they weren't directly responsible for (but the action came about because of that person), and not mention the person directly responsible, without being accused of not giving the person directly responsible enough credit. Hopefully that is clearer. If not, perhaps I can attempt a better, real-world, analogy.

So we are in the same time zone. I was wondering about that.

You could have made two moves--I only had one legal move. Oh, well. Rx2iv+G

He said TV's Frank, not TV's Frink. It's some guy with a similar last name.

R-1iv

Don't apologize--family comes before semi-anonymous Shogi partners. Sorry to hear that she's sick.

Gotcha. In that case, B*2i, check

Wow, your king can fly? ;) I'm guessing you meant K-4iv--is that right?

If so, R-1iv, check

Unless one of us made an error somewhere, I exposed your king to my bishop by moving my gold general. Previously, my gold was between the two pieces.

Frink, the audio is really messed up--at least for the first bit, I haven't yet watched past 1 minute. All I can hear is the drums, which continue throughout the whole minute. All the little singing people pop up and sing, but silently, while the drums beat on and on and on. It might just be me, but I'm pretty sure it isn't.

EDIT: The channel with the dialogue is completely missing. All other sounds appear to be present.

Gx1iii+R, check

February 2:

A.D. 962: German king Otto I is crowned Emperor.

A.D. 1536: Buenos Aires is founded.

A.D. 1848: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ends the Mexican Wars. The U.S. acquires California, parts of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona for $15 million (EDIT: and Nevada and Utah).

A.D. 1882: The Catholic men's organization, the Knights of Columbus, is formed.

I'm not doing so well this game. Hopefully things turn around. S-3iv.