A curated thread?

Please be patient guys. The first steps may be unsteady and shaky, but we will make it a reality.

Common fallacies theists use?

History of the christian bible?

I’d like to see a walk-through of the most common fallacies, with examples.

Why don’t we start with

Why would a deity allow suffering?

Pretty basic - covers all deities (I think) - at least the major ones. It should have an argument from the various “faiths” - or basic message to start -

I can think of @boomer47 use of that saying (that isn’t coming to mind, hahahah)

Yeah, I can’t either. I have had a problem with evil and suffering since I was about 16. Never been solved by any religion.

Ah, do you mean my oft cited quote by Epicurus? :

"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?”


YES!!! That’s the quote.

A comprehensive list of informal logical fallacies might be useful, with their definitions, and citations to explain that nothing can be asserted as rational if it uses or contains a known logical fallacy.

While we’re at it we could explain what rational means, as several theists have claimed to be making rational arguments, and I suspect they didn’t know this meant they must adhere to the principles of logic.


HEY! Why NOT start with (umpteen) time an archived

WHAT IS AN ATHEIST? (Practice thread)

Shit :poop: there are more than enough arguments out there (in almost every thread) AND explanations… AND yes :+1: :heart: the idea of a
LOGICAL FALLACIES thread for archive! You the king :crown: on that

Oh goody goody, we can use the “how many gumballs (odd or even) in the machine” explanation.

And “not a stamp collector”.

Personally - I’m taking our long weekend off… well, except for chatting.

BUT I was thinking last night.

Our topics archives IMO should be atheist driven - fuck my stupid comment for a “deity allow suffering”. - those arguments will most likely be covered …

Perhaps even just a thread name

@Cognostic Correction to the last one: “4. The Bible and/or the Qur’an, as the unchanging word of God (Click Here)” Now, it sounds more accurate.

@David_Killens I thought you are an electrician. So when are you going to come over and wire my brand new, state-of-the-art, electric chair? :rofl: :sweat_smile: :rofl: :sweat_smile: :rofl:

I can not, else I get flack from PETA. And FFS, that is not a chair.

goat chair

Sounds pretty good. Just thought; do you think it would be worth keeping the language simple? I mention this because in my opinion, the standard of language here ranges from literate high school student of about 16, up to post graduate. (EG Call; is he still around? I miss him))

Up to a couple of days ago, I had never heard the word ‘ochlocracy’. I had to look it up. It means mob rule, but it’s a lovely word, I’d be happy to use it. I usually refer to Joe Sixpack or ‘we the people’ , but I think those expressions can be a bit obtuse. Ochlocracy is more precise I think, but how many people who come here would know what it means?

I’d recommend a reading age of about 12. I mention this because it’s the reading age of an editorial of our local Murdoch rag.

Just saying.


The end goal of curated topics is to be a counter argument for theists.

1 Like

Reading Age of 12 is the standard for maintenance manuals, safety journals and notices.

Yep, works here too.

Of course it is.

My office was in a poor area with about 25% functional illiteracy. We did a literacy test of our pamphlets, application forms and general letters. The level; undergraduate.

Did the Sheltered Workshop (aka State Headquarters) do anything about this? Of course they fucking well didn’t .

1 Like

But do anyone around here have a 12 year old to make sure it is at the appropriate level? :rofl:

But yes, I agree. The language used should be easy to read, without difficult verbiage.

1 Like

…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:)