Name: Coffee & Philosophy: Do You Choose What You Believe?
Start: 2026-08-29T20:00:00.000Z
Location: Top Pot Doughtnuts

**\*\*This is a cross-post from ONLINE Theology & Apologetics Discussion\*\***
https://www.meetup.com/theology-1/

**ONLINE MEETING INFORMATION**
[https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87017563332](https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87017563332)
**Password** = 123456

A Discussion Group (Not a Bible Study)

Although we do discuss the Bible, this group is not a Bible study; it is a discussion group.

We discuss topics regarding religious faith, practice and experience including the following: Christian theology; the Bible; Atheism and other Skeptics; Islam; Mormonism; Charismatic theology; Calvinism and Reformed theology; Dispensationalism; End-Times Eschatology; King James Onlyism; Mysticism; Universalism; Separation of Church and State; ethics; etc. Topics are decided by those attending so bring a list of your favorites.

Everyone is welcome to join the group. Many perspectives are represented ranging from born-again Christians to Atheists and other skeptics and non-believers. We have spirited discussions and debates but we do so in a friendly and respectful manner.

You are welcome to participate in the discussions or just listen. Be prepared to be challenged (so come with a thick skin). And feel free to challenge the beliefs, assumptions and thoughts of others in a respectful way.

A Note about Attendance
Many new people ask, "Will you and I be the only ones there? Nobody else has RSVP'd." Most of the attendees of this group have been coming for a long time and do not bother to RSVP. There are typically about 6 to 12 people who show up each week.

A Note to Christians
This is your opportunity to meet actual unbelievers who are asking you to explain the Gospel and your beliefs to them. This is a great forum to practice witnessing and putting forth a defense of your faith. You may find that defending your faith and presenting the Gospel to real live unbelievers is a bit different from reading books on witnessing or just talking about witnessing with other Christians at church. As the New Testament indicates, the Gospel is an offense to unbelievers so we should not be surprised when the unbeliever reacts out of that offense. Set your expectations accordingly. It may be difficult at first but this group will give you excellent preparation for sharing the Gospel and defending your faith. This group is not for the fainthearted (but neither is biblical Christianity).

Being prepared to defend our faith is the duty of the Christian according to the Apostle Peter:

1 Peter 3:14-17 - 14b Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.

Deep Conversations

Todd

Tony Tong

Kia Hunter

christina

Allan (we / us)

Theology & Apologetics - Weekly Thursday Discussion

Online event

**This is a cross-post from the Straight Talk About Politics Group. Original group can be found here:**
https://www.meetup.com/straight-talk-about-politics-and-more/events/316125352

Please **sign up for the event in the original group**, linked just above. **The Zoom link will only be posted there** to help guard against Zoom bombers. Thank you for understanding.

The question of eligibility criteria for women's sports has been around for several years, and the [recent WNBA controversy](https://www.wsj.com/opinion/wnba-asks-what-is-a-w-35be411e?st=mnvSDh&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink) has brought it to the forefront again. This event aims to bring together diverse and passionate perspectives to examine whether transgender women should be permitted to compete in female categories, or if restrictions (bans) should be implemented across high school, college, and professional levels.

The proponents of banning biological women from competing in women’s sports might put forward these arguments:

· **Competitive Fairness and Biology:** Male puberty confers permanent physiological advantages—including larger skeletal structure, greater bone density, and higher baseline muscle mass—that hormone therapy cannot fully reverse.
· **Integrity of the Female Category:** The women's sports category was historically established to provide a protected space where female athletes could compete on an equal playing field.
· **Safety Concerns:** In contact and combat sports, lingering physiological differences in size, power, and bone density could pose safety risks to female competitors.
· **The "Open" Category Alternative:** Critics argue that maintaining a protected female class while establishing an inclusive "open" category (for cisgender men, transgender women, and any other athletes) protects competitive fairness for biological females.

The opponents, on the other hand, argue from a different viewpoint:

* **Human Rights and Inclusion:** Sports promote crucial physical, social, and psychological benefits. Exclusion leads to isolation, discrimination, and negative mental health outcomes. This is an especially important consideration at the high-school level.
* **Physiological Changes from Hormone Therapy:** Sustained testosterone suppression and estrogen therapy significantly reduce muscle mass, strength, and bone density over time.
* **Natural Biological Diversity:** Elite athletic success is inherently built on a wide range of natural biological variations (e.g., height, lung capacity, baseline hormones) that are already accepted in competition.
* **Evidence-Based Governance:** Major bodies like the IOC and NCAA favor sport-specific, regulated biological thresholds rather than blanket bans to balance fairness and inclusion.

So, what do you think? Come and share your opinion in a passionate, but respectful discussion. Or just bring your popcorn, sit back, and listen to the others talk it over. We’ll have a designated speaker on each side of the motion giving opening and closing statements, and an open floor discussion in between.

Steve B

Yana Van Arsdale

Mark Mazenko

Mitchell 

Kerry (Seattle, WA)

Tuan

John

Erik

Vincent

Pedro Garcia

Steve Rast

Should Biological Men Be Banned From Women’s Sports?

The final dual. The debate to end all debates. The ultimate showdown between two opposing titans of supreme intellect. It’s just a debate people, let’s have some fun.

This event will begin with a formal debate between George and Kerry on the topic of **“Capitalism vs Communism: Which is Better For Society?”**

However the format of this debate will be different. Unlike typical debates you might have seen, we are experimenting with a structure that is intended to declare an official winner. Too often there are debates where both sides think they won, or the best attempt I’ve seen has been taking an audience vote before & after to see who did a better job moving the needle. While this is ok, there are still many flaws with this method.

I will lay out all the full debate structure when we begin the event, but here are a few top level principles:

**No Time Limit!** – The debate does not end until we have a winner.
**4 Ways to Win** – Of which I will detail when the event begins.
**Audience Involvement** – There will be times when we will need to poll the
audience to decide on a particular technicality during the debate. Audience voting is never for the main position or person you are aligned with, but only for determining the validity of a specific claim made (ie whether a specific question is valid, or whether a claim meets the definition of a logical fallacy).

Debaters and audience members are encouraged to have an understanding of known logical fallacies. These are encouraged to be recognized by the debaters and understood by audience members who are voting with these understandings:

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTCigOf5RFWwoJMueyNiMQ9b-qvJF5x0u097dUIMZGjNkJzNwusrcT-h1MQ6b7mlMnC2HFQG2uzoFOV/pubhtml](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTCigOf5RFWwoJMueyNiMQ9b-qvJF5x0u097dUIMZGjNkJzNwusrcT-h1MQ6b7mlMnC2HFQG2uzoFOV/pubhtml)

I have no clue how long this debate will last. Bring some popcorn, get some booze, if you have a giant foam Hammer & Sickle lying around this would be a perfect time for it. If anything this is a fun experiment and I greatly appreciate George and Kerry for being willing to participate.

Once the debate is over we will continue with our regular open discussion format. Hope to see you!

Think and Drink!

George

Rick

Jena

Barbara Scobee

Tone

ConTheStonerLin

Amanda

Joy Salaja

Stephen

Fran

Arielle M.

Daniel K

Ginny

Moises Guerra García

michael

Cage Match Debate: "Capitalism vs Communism"

This is a casual discussion group for people of all backgrounds and opinions.

**Do You Choose What You Believe?**
I am personally of the opinion that you can indeed choose what you believe, however I find it interested that most people do not agree and think that your beliefs are not a choice.

Are your beliefs just a reactionary response to the information you have received mixed with your bias and genetic disposition? Do your beliefs come from any critical thinking? Do you choose to think critically or what sources to trust that can influence your beliefs?

May other factors to consider, and much to discuss. Hope you can come join us, pull up a chair, grab a coffee or doughnut and participate in some stimulating discussion! All views and opinions welcome, the more diversity of perspectives the better!

Coffee & Philosophy: Do You Choose What You Believe?

Top Pot Doughtnuts

Think and Drink Events

Groups

{PRO_NETWORK_NAME} is on Meetup Pro with more than {PRO_MEMBER_COUNT} members across {PRO_GROUP_COUNT} Meetups worldwide. Meetup Pro is the professional tool for organizing and communicating a network of users, partners, contributors and members.

Think and Drink Events

Who we are

Upcoming events

Who we are

Groups