Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70645 comments on the TurkishPress.com story from Aug 26, 2009, titled Atheists on the march in America. In it, TurkishPress.com reports that:

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TurkishPress.com.

Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#66010 Dec 16, 2012
www.youtube.com/watch...
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
If you cannot identify the divine, you cannot appreciate it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66011 Dec 16, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
It means saying something does not make it true. The only thing permanent about science is that its theories are always changing. I suspect that new uncompromising scientific speculations over the next few decades about the origin of the universe will retire the big bang theory to history's folder of quaint ideas that people used to believe.
What I am saying is that you seem to be misunderstanding what the scientific theory about the Big Bang actually says. For example, the scientific theory says nothing at all about the beginning, the cause, or what happened before (if anything). The scientific theory, at this point, describes the expansion and cooling of the universe through various stages *since* the time about 13.7 billion years ago when it was hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions to happen everywhere. There are certainly *speculations* and *intuitions* about what happened prior to that time period, but at this point, the evidence is sketchy. The evidence is clear, though, that the universe is expanding from a hot and dense state about 13.7 billion years ago. THAT is the content of the Big Bang theory.
So far, anyway. Personally I don't think science will ever pinpoint "a beginning" of the universe for such a beginning is simultaneously too vast and too small to be contained in any of its specifications.
The time about 13.7 billion years ago when the universe was incredibly hot and dense is a good point to talk about the beginning of our universe. In particular, a good time to say it began is when the average energy of fundamental particles was about the Planck energy. This was the time of quantum gravity.

Was there something *before* that? I don't know. Nobody knows at this point. We simply do not have the evidence to say what, if anything was around then. We have speculation, but not knowledge.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66012 Dec 16, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What I am saying is that you seem to be misunderstanding what the scientific theory about the Big Bang actually says. For example, the scientific theory says nothing at all about the beginning, the cause, or what happened before (if anything). The scientific theory, at this point, describes the expansion and cooling of the universe through various stages *since* the time about 13.7 billion years ago when it was hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions to happen everywhere. There are certainly *speculations* and *intuitions* about what happened prior to that time period, but at this point, the evidence is sketchy. The evidence is clear, though, that the universe is expanding from a hot and dense state about 13.7 billion years ago. THAT is the content of the Big Bang theory.
<quoted text>
The time about 13.7 billion years ago when the universe was incredibly hot and dense is a good point to talk about the beginning of our universe. In particular, a good time to say it began is when the average energy of fundamental particles was about the Planck energy. This was the time of quantum gravity.
Was there something *before* that? I don't know. Nobody knows at this point. We simply do not have the evidence to say what, if anything was around then. We have speculation, but not knowledge.
Our universe BEGAN with a hot big bang 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded and cooled ever since.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

The most popular theory of our universe's ORIGIN centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history—the big bang.

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science...

The universe is believed to have ORIGINATED about 15 billion years ago as a dense, hot globule of gas expanding rapidly outward.

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0771149.html

Sounds like a "beginning" to me although you're right, the theory says nothing about a "cause".

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66013 Dec 16, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
How pray tell, would one produce a "three dimensional image" of something that is not physical? LOL!
Wow, you Googled the definition but read nothing about it. Just ... wow.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66014 Dec 16, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you Googled the definition but read nothing about it. Just ... wow.
Do you have a theory that challenges all the statements I googled?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66015 Dec 16, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a theory that challenges all the statements I googled?
ROFLMAO Thank you, I needed a good laugh today.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66016 Dec 16, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Our universe BEGAN with a hot big bang 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded and cooled ever since.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
The most popular theory of our universe's ORIGIN centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history—the big bang.
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science...
The universe is believed to have ORIGINATED about 15 billion years ago as a dense, hot globule of gas expanding rapidly outward.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0771149.html
Sounds like a "beginning" to me although you're right, the theory says nothing about a "cause".
You seem to be confusing articles written about science for a lay audience (which tend to oversimplify by necessity) with what science says in its own research literature. And the examples you identified provide a good example of how a popular website can get it wrong. The FactMonster site is wrong when it says that the origin involved a "globule of gas" (it wasn't gas), and when it says "about 15 billion years" (when another page of the same site accurately refers to an age of 13.7 billion years (with a 1% error).

If you want to understand science as it is actually practiced, then read the research literature itself.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66017 Dec 16, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be confusing articles written about science for a lay audience (which tend to oversimplify by necessity) with what science says in its own research literature. And the examples you identified provide a good example of how a popular website can get it wrong. The FactMonster site is wrong when it says that the origin involved a "globule of gas" (it wasn't gas), and when it says "about 15 billion years" (when another page of the same site accurately refers to an age of 13.7 billion years (with a 1% error).
If you want to understand science as it is actually practiced, then read the research literature itself.
Oversimplified or not. Those statements from different website all concur. The big bang theory says the universe had a beginning.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66018 Dec 16, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO Thank you, I needed a good laugh today.
In other words, no, you don't have a theory.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66019 Dec 16, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Oversimplified or not. Those statements from different website all concur.
It doesn't matter if they concur, since the point is that they oversimplify. They are not scientific research literature, and therefore, do not define what the Big Bang Theory says.
The Theory itself does not claim that the Universe had a "beginning".
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66020 Dec 16, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter if they concur, since the point is that they oversimplify. They are not scientific research literature, and therefore, do not define what the Big Bang Theory says.
The Theory itself does not claim that the Universe had a "beginning".
If your assertion is correct, than the nonscientific population shouldn't take anything science says about the universe with more than a grain of salt.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#66021 Dec 16, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I had one that was not induced by meditation, drugs or trauma.
That is what happens to every women who has had the pleasure of my company..
;)

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#66022 Dec 16, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>That is what happens to every women who has had the pleasure of my company..
;)
So we should all come prepared and wear a tether like an astronaut who steps outside?

I can handle that.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#66023 Dec 16, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>So we should all come prepared and wear a tether like an astronaut who steps outside?
I can handle that.
Exactly. I will even let you tether yourself to me instead of the bed post like everyone else.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#66024 Dec 16, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly. I will even let you tether yourself to me instead of the bed post like everyone else.
That might prove dangerous for you, what with me ricocheting off the walls.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#66025 Dec 16, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>That might prove dangerous for you, what with me ricocheting off the walls.
Nah, I have a good grip.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#66026 Dec 17, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
If your assertion is correct, than the nonscientific population shouldn't take anything science says about the universe with more than a grain of salt.
But here you are, in our classrooms & schools. Hypnotizing the kids with meaningless chants and misleading fairy tale nonsense disguised as morality.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66027 Dec 17, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Our universe BEGAN with a hot big bang 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded and cooled ever since.
This is the one that is closest to the actual theory.
The most popular theory of our universe's ORIGIN centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history—the big bang.
This is less accurate: the use of the word cataclysym is very misleading.
The universe is believed to have ORIGINATED about 15 billion years ago as a dense, hot globule of gas expanding rapidly outward.
This one is just flat-out wrong. It gives the impression of an expansion of matter into space which is just wrong. Instead, the Big Bang is an expansion of space itself. This is one of the most common mistakes made in the popular press about this theory.
Sounds like a "beginning" to me although you're right, the theory says nothing about a "cause".
Technically, the LCDM Big Bang only deals with the universe after about a nanosecond after the expansion started. That is close enough to be considered the 'beginning' by most people, although the actual beginning is not addressed in the current model. If you say that universe started when the current expansion phase started (which is reasonable in many ways), then the universe started about 13.7 billion years ago.

What happened before that nanosecond into the expansion is not known, although it is widely modeled. In some models, time began at the beginning of the expansion (the is the view from general relativity). In these models, there is no cause simply because there is no time 'before the Big Bang'. In other models, such as string theory, there is a very long slow expansion phase before the rapid expansion of the Big Bang. In these models, the universe is causally connected to the previous expansion phase. In still other models, there is an earlier contraction phase that has a Big Bounce that leads to the current universe. In still other models, there is a multiverse from which universes pinch off and ours is one of many.

We cannot, as yet, distinguish between these different models observationally. The details depend strongly on what happens at the level of particle physics (essentially because fundamental particles are all that exists at the early stages). So, while the LHC can push pack the time where our theories apply (by producing the hot dense states similar to the early universe), there is presently no way to produce the energies required to really test quantum gravity.

Once again, these are all *extensions* of the basic Big Bang theory whcih simply talks about a universe expanding from an early hot dense uniform state.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66028 Dec 17, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a theory that challenges all the statements I googled?
How many papers do you want?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.3573
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.3445
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.3339
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.3554
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.3527
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4253
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.3283

These are all papers about various aspects of the Big Bang theory *as done by scientists*. Furthermore, these are the papers put on an archive on a *single* day.

Your popularizations of the theory do not count. What counts is the actual scientific theory and how it is treated by those investigating the theory, its alternatives, its predictions, and its evidence.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66029 Dec 17, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
If your assertion is correct, than the nonscientific population shouldn't take anything science says about the universe with more than a grain of salt.
I would be very careful about any article about science that is written by a journalist. These tend to be the worst simply because the journalist doesn't really understand what is going on in the science, so you get the combined effect of the (unfortunately necessary) simplification for a lay audience AND the misunderstandings of the journalist.

The popular articles that are actually written by scientists are generally of better quality. Even these are subject to the problem of simplification. There is simply no way to accurately describe what is going on in modern cosmology without at least some background in mathematics. So we are reduced to analogies that break down at the interesting questions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Dogen 75,685
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Frindly 32,060
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 7 hr Regolith Based Li... 4,084
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 9 hr Brendatucker 232
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 10 hr Subduction Zone 6,112
Majority of Scots now have no religion (May '16) Tue John 164
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) Tue Eagle 12 - 581
More from around the web