A curated thread?

…and Bank Managers (had to simplify my memos to them -
“I was told…”)

BUT to be fair it’s not a reflection of intelligence (smart like an12 year old) ITS for comprehensive purposes.

When introducing or reading new ideas or counter information, the mind needs it to be “easy to understand” BECAUSE it is fighting itself.

WELL - let’s get this show on the road

For this practice, just post the argument found in this thread and we can move them (ones picked) to the archived/curative practise one.

I’m going to start with what should be the easiest because we answer it almost every fucking day…

No idea how it will appear to regular members… anyway - post responses here and we’ll sort through this idea :bulb:… (herding cats :cat2:)

I’m keeping Cogs :gear: recent comments in mind when we start getting feedback…


BTW - the thread just has a few “searched” past comments.

I did it to give it a “feel” and also as a starter for comments and feedback as well as ideas for members to find the arguments they’ve found (appreciated) convincing.

Nothing in that starter practice thread is “permanent” nor am I attached to any particular approach… just a “kick start”…

[quote=“Get_off_my_lawn, post:468, topic:282, full:true”]

I moved this feedback here and closed the old thread that I found the argument- which brings me to …
Arguments we find in old threads may re-open the old threads.



The thread with the argument is here:

What about splitting the answer in two, one short and one more detailed. For example:

The short answer:
Atheism is merely the lack of faith in a god, any god. It does not make sense to claim that atheists have a problem with/is angry with/hate an entity they do not believe in. It’s like asking why people who don’t believe in Santa Claus hate him.

The long answer:
[lots of text]

  1. If you don’t believe in a god, what do you believe in?

Preface Evolution, The Big Bang, Morality, Anything scientific challenged by a theist with … "Let’s pretend you are right. Evolution is wrong. 100% wrong. The Big Bang was Not a Naturally Occurring event. Human beings could not have simply popped into existence from nothing. Let’s just, for the sake of argument, assume you are 100% correct. “Now, what evidence do you have that a God had a hand in any of it?” (Before you can assert that a God did anything, you have to demonstrate that this God thing is a possibility.)

As an atheist I dislike the word “believe”.
I don’t beleive in evolution or the big bang. I read about them and examine why I accept the claims or not. I have done the same for theist claims, for which I always end up rejecting because no reasonable case can be made for the existence of any god.
Because all fields of scientific study have become so specialised I have no hope of effective assessing all the many experiments and validations of research in any field. So I rely on accumulating, with my limited intelligence, as broad an understanding as I can possible muster about the larger areas of that edifice of knowledge called Science.

Nothing I have read has ‘proven’ (or disproven) evolutionary theory but the books, papers and articles I have read and the things I have witnessed about the natural world, life and death, all persistently reinforce the contining plausibility of it.
I dont ‘beleive’ in the Big Bang. I have not seen a Black Hole and I cant personally experience phenomena in the solar system, the galaxy, other galaxies or the Universe. My only direct interaction is looking at the night sky.
Again I rely on the findings and publications of cosmologists and for the moment I place equal value in the Big Bounce theory as for the Big Bang. I do not know if either is correct. Lemaitre warned not to rely on his original ‘cosmic egg’ theory because it was only a mathematical model and it turns out he had to fudge a bit to make it balance out.

I dont believe in science. I trust to the scientific methodology and findings of scientists and I trust in the ruthless peer review processes that seperate near certainty from misinterpretations and incomplete information.
I certainly have no faith in religions or the philosophy of apologetics. They might all follow logical sequences in a seamless dovetailed fit but I cant allow any of it because it starts with nothing other than presumptive claims about the existence of intangible gods.
I think I prefer the word ‘trust’ than ‘belief’. The various religions have taken possession of that word and narrowed its meaning for their own purposes.

1 Like

Me too.

I’m wary of truth statements and am a moral relativist.

I’ll stick with evolution because I have only a very basic understanding the Big Bang Theory which may well be wrong. That there was a singularity which began to expand … Time, space and the universe began with it. That’s about the extent of my ‘knowledge’ . Makes more sense to me than 'god did it. I accept that it may well be right. I do not claim to know.

Evolution is a different animal entirely. I read 'The Voyage of The Beagle " in 1976, and was fascinated. Since then I have read enough to convince me that Evolution has been demonstrated to be fact. I accept that it is true based on all the information we have. However, for all I know, there may be future knowledge which shows evolution to be limited, as Einsteinian physics did with Newtonian Physics.

I remain a skeptic, and question everything. No question is ever closed, not even the inevitability of death. Even that may change at some indeterminate time in the future. In the meantime I’m 99.99999% certain that I will die in the relatively near future , probably within 10-12 years. Don’t like that idea at all, but can’t think of anything I can do to prevent it.

Jesus! I only realised I am in the Site Feedback area…hope I contributed something useful…

Exactly. This is a very important distinction. I know very little about, say, quantum chromodynamics, but I trust the experts when they publish peer-reviewed papers and their results have been verified. Besides, what is there to believe in? There are no theories to pray to by reciting equations, and no scientific journal to act as a gospel.

Yes, you did. By pointing out the above distinction.

There is one question that in my book is always closed. When asked “Would you like some coffee?” the answer is always “yes, please!” :rofl:

1 Like

Indeed, let alone assert, as many theists do on here, that a deity is a more probable cause than an as yet unexplained natural phenomenon. Which of course we do know are possible, since natural phenomena explain every single aspect of the universe and world, that science currently understands.

Also this is a deistic argument, not theistic one.

1 Like

I’m thinking each of those deserve their own curated thread with a few explanations/arguments. But a good lead on various topics.

I went back to the practice and highlighted the consistent answer.

I don’t want to edit each individual’s original argument or comment- just drew attention to the answer.

The thread is short - not too long. I think :thinking: it’s adequately addressed.

I’ve read your guyses (lol) yapping about “believe” in regard to science. I believe (lol) when we start the sciencey part rarely is the word “believe” used by us. Words such as trust, confidence, etc appear frequently …

I drink 10 demi tasse of coffee a day. It was 10 full cups, but I realised that was excessive.

I believe life is too short to drink instant coffee. (or bad wine)

A couple of months ago ago l lashed out and bought a beautiful retro SMEG drip coffee maker. (It’s red) Currently talking myself into buying a SMEG espresso maker.(black) It has very good reviews.

I’ve reached the point where I tend to buy pretty much what I want . Had the same conversation with myself that I had with my mother when she was 80. She was hesitating about flying business class home to Canada. Viz " What are you saving your money for, your old age? I have news for you; it’s here"

Me and wifey use a Jura coffee maker that grinds the beans. Push a button, BRRRRRRRR-VRRRRRRRR-Purrrrrrrrrr, and voilá, coffee!

I must admit that I’m a bit confused as to how you manage the practice thread. Can you clarify the procedure? Is the discussion going here or in the practice thread?

Anyway, here is my take on it. Feel free to dissect it, criticize it, turn it upside down/inside out, reformulate it, expand upon it, etc. I’m not emotionally attached to it, so it’s free game.

The dictionary definition of “atheist” is (Merriam-Webster): a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Thus, an atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god or gods. To be more precise: atheism in its basic form is not the active belief that there is no god (singular or plural), but the absence of active belief in a god/gods. No more, no less.

Agnostic atheism: lack of belief in any god, combined with the realisation that the existence or non-existence of any god is not knowable, and can not be proven or disproven.

Strong atheism: in addition to a lack of belief in any god, the strong atheist makes the positive claim that no god(s) exist.

What atheism isn’t: belief in other gods or Satan – atheists do not worship any supernatural beings.