True, but I would consider the most common chain of reasoning for atheism (Occam's razor, therefore no God) equivalent to thinking in terms of probabilities even if probabilities aren't explicitly mentioned.

rubber on the side facing your head

Looks like it would mitigate the shock somewhat.

Have them look like swim caps and drill holes so water can flow? I don't see the problem, it looks like a definite win for elderly people at the very least.

It's not a contest.

But it is. There are only a limited number of ideas we can work on, so we'd better have some reason to think that this idea has more potential than any of the innumerable other ideas we could be working on instead.

Your definition of atheism doesn't seem to reflect the way the word is used. A good portion of self-identified atheists would in fact be agnostics under your definition. In fact, every flavour of atheism I would consider compatible with general LW beliefs would be agnosticism since we can only claim that P(god) is very small.

Me too.

I'm not too familiar with research gate, but for the rest:

Quora: By far the worst when it comes to objective facts. While there are gems here and there, most upvoted answers read like pep talks, and usually don't have much content beyond that of a decent pep talk. Go here if you want a pep talk or a popularization of some scientific concept.

Stackexchange: is where you want to be most of the time. The answers are good, and their accuracy is much better than anywhere else on the net. If you're asking about a topic anywhere close to mainstream in academia (or if you're interested in computers), you'll find an expert on that very topic.

Lesswrong: Honestly, lesswrong is too small. Unless you're going to ask about niche topics (EA, Singularity, Cryonics, and the like), there's a good chance nobody here is an expert on what you're interested in. If you are interested in the niche topics, you'll find people willing to give you detailed answers. But beware of only getting one side of the story. The answers you'll get don't necessarily reflect expert consensus, or even rationalist consensus (See yvain's opinion polls and how they match up with the comments you read. Also, check out all the other rationalist hubs. For instance, the tumblr rationalists have a markedly different atmosphere.).

I disagree with the premise that LW tears half-baked ideas to shreds. My experience (which, admittedly is limited to open threads) is that you'll be fine if you're clear that what you're presenting a work in progress, and you don't overreach with your ideas.

By overreach, I mean something like this:

This is an attempt to solve happiness. Several factors, such as health, genetics, and social environment, affect happiness. So happiness = healthgeneticssocial environment.

You can see what's wrong with the post above. It's usually not this blatant, but I see this sort of thing too often, and they are invariably ripped to shreds. On the other hand, something like this:

This is an attempt to solve happiness. First, I'd like to identify the factors that affect happiness. I can think of health, genetics, and social environment. Can we break this down further? Am I missing any important factors?

Probably won't be ripped to shreds. It has it's fair share of problems, so I wouldn't expect an enthusiastic response from the community, but it won't be piled upon either.

Frankly speaking, the first type of post reeks of cargo cult science (big equations, formal style (often badly executed), and references that may or may not help the reader). I'm not too unhappy to see those posts being ripped to shreds.