Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70650 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.

Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#66089 Dec 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
In general relativity, gravity is essentially a curvature of space-time. However, it is still a force because that curvature produces relative acceleration of nearby geodesics. Once quantum effects are considered, the matter isn't so straightforward because the same situation can be regarded in geometric terms (curvature), field theoretic terms (force field), or particle interactions (gravitons). All three are the same mathematically.
So yes, gravity is justifiably considered a force. It is the weakest of the four fundamental forces by far.
Anybody that would argue that gravity is not a force is arguing pure semantics. I would have a hard time wasting my intellectual energy on them.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#66090 Dec 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
In general relativity, gravity is essentially a curvature of space-time. However, it is still a force because that curvature produces relative acceleration of nearby geodesics. Once quantum effects are considered, the matter isn't so straightforward because the same situation can be regarded in geometric terms (curvature), field theoretic terms (force field), or particle interactions (gravitons). All three are the same mathematically.
So yes, gravity is justifiably considered a force. It is the weakest of the four fundamental forces by far.
Doesn't seem that way when I take off my bra...

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#66091 Dec 18, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Anybody that would argue that gravity is not a force is arguing pure semantics. I would have a hard time wasting my intellectual energy on them.
Go ahead, tell me everything you know, genius. It'll only take 10 seconds.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#66092 Dec 18, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ahead, tell me everything you know, genius. It'll only take 10 seconds.
There's not much TO know. Do things move by way of gravity? Yes. Then it's a force. Any other stupid questions?

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#66093 Dec 18, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There's not much TO know. Do things move by way of gravity? Yes. Then it's a force. Any other stupid questions?
It's difficult to get the big picture when you have such a small screen, isn't it?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66094 Dec 18, 2012
The great sky wizard sends in his angels to hold everything down right?

Lmfao!
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
It's difficult to get the big picture when you have such a small screen, isn't it?
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#66095 Dec 19, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
It's difficult to get the big picture when you have such a small screen, isn't it?
I don't know, you tell me.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#66096 Dec 19, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
It's difficult to get the big picture when you have such a small screen, isn't it?
Look... I didn't mean to insult you earlier when I made that reference to "intellectual energy". I don't claim to be able to explain how gravity exists. However; a program on the science channel showing celestial bodies bending the universe as an explanation for gravity IS still at this point a theory, first of all. There is a FORCE that brings objects together. If there wasn't, we'd all remain in the same stagnant place. Nothing would move. As a matter of fact, none of us would even be here, because things never could have formed. The fact is simple... the explanation, not so much.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#66097 Dec 19, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There's not much TO know. Do things move by way of gravity? Yes. Then it's a force. Any other stupid questions?
When my dog farts, I move and fast. Would that be considered a force to your way of thinking?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#66098 Dec 19, 2012
You're fooling no one.
Your dog blames it on you.
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
When my dog farts, I move and fast. Would that be considered a force to your way of thinking?
John

United States

#66099 Dec 19, 2012
john wrote:
Unfortunately, many atheists are antitheists. Foreshadowing where this thread will end up I'll ask a simple question. What position are defending? Disbelief is not belief, and mocking religion/God is usually the response to a simple question. Stump an antitheist! Ask him what he believes.
The above post goes back to 2009. These loons have not contributed one kernel of evidence or made one attempt to debate. Three years and tens of thousands of posts about nothing. Complete whackjobs lmao.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#66100 Dec 19, 2012
I believe in freedom despite whackjobs like you.
John wrote:
<quoted text>
The above post goes back to 2009. These loons have not contributed one kernel of evidence or made one attempt to debate. Three years and tens of thousands of posts about nothing. Complete whackjobs lmao.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66101 Dec 19, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There's not much TO know. Do things move by way of gravity? Yes. Then it's a force. Any other stupid questions?
First of all, forces in Newtonian physics cause the change of motion, not the motion itself. In the absence of forces, things move in straight lines at uniform speeds.

Now, when you get away from Newtonian physics, the situation becomes more complicated. In curved spacetime, there are no 'straight lines'. There are, however, geodesics which travel minimal distance paths. An analogy would be the great circles on a sphere. They are not straight lines, but they are the 'shortest distance between points'.

So then you get the question of how to define the concept of a force. If a force is something that causes objects to deviate from the geodesics, then gravity is NOT a force. If, instead, forces are defined by whether distances are accelerated, then gravity *is* a force. In general relativity, the first viewpoint is the more common: that gravity is NOT a force because objects in gravitational fields move on spacetime geodesics.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66102 Dec 19, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not after science got through with it, no.
Not even when LeMaitre was working on it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66103 Dec 19, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't seem that way when I take off my bra...
And if the contents of the bra have any magnetism, the force of gravity is paltry compared to the attraction from other magnetic objects.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66104 Dec 19, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Look... I didn't mean to insult you earlier when I made that reference to "intellectual energy". I don't claim to be able to explain how gravity exists. However; a program on the science channel showing celestial bodies bending the universe as an explanation for gravity IS still at this point a theory, first of all. There is a FORCE that brings objects together. If there wasn't, we'd all remain in the same stagnant place. Nothing would move. As a matter of fact, none of us would even be here, because things never could have formed. The fact is simple... the explanation, not so much.
Once again, this is a misunderstanding of the nature of forces. Forces do not cause motion. They cause *changes* in motion. The distinction may seem trivial, but it is one of the crucial differences between Aristotelean and Newtonian mechanics. For Aristotle, F=mv, force was mass times velocity. For newton, F=ma, force is mass times acceleration.

In a Newtonian system, objects will move in straight lines with the same velocity even in the absence of force. Force is not required for motion.

Now, in more modern systems, like general relativity or quantum mechanics, the same basic understanding of the concept of force still holds. There are complications due to curved spacetime or the probabilistic nature of the quantum world, but the same basic idea is that forces cause changes of motion, not the motion itself.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66105 Dec 19, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Look... I didn't mean to insult you earlier when I made that reference to "intellectual energy". I don't claim to be able to explain how gravity exists. However; a program on the science channel showing celestial bodies bending the universe as an explanation for gravity IS still at this point a theory, first of all. There is a FORCE that brings objects together. If there wasn't, we'd all remain in the same stagnant place. Nothing would move. As a matter of fact, none of us would even be here, because things never could have formed. The fact is simple... the explanation, not so much.
It you saw it on TV, it was designed for lay public consumption, which means it's an oversimplification and may even be wrong according to polykoder. He/she suggests that such information be viewed with suspicion. In reality, this is just an excuse to cover the fact that scientists are generally lousy communicators and more often than not, fail to make their case to the public in comprehensible terms. Anyway, the description of gravity has changed somewhat since Newton and an apple collided. Alternative theories of gravity say it's not a force that objects exert upon each other. It's an effect and not the cause of anything. Instead it "emerges" from the interactions of more fundamental forces.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physic...
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66106 Dec 19, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even when LeMaitre was working on it.
Do you really think a catholic priest would suspend his religious beliefs to come up with a scientific hypothesis that excludes God from creation?

"Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes. The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses.”

"The Holy Scriptures clearly attest to a "beginning" that one would expect to be reflected in the natural world. Scientific proof only comes from consistency with empirical evidence. Therefore, the distinction of orders is only relevant in the context of verification."

"Both of them (the scientist-believer and the scientist-nonbeliever) attempt at decoding the palimpsest of nature with multiple imbrications in which the traces of the various stages of the world's lengthy evolution has been overlapped and blended. The believer perhaps has an advantage of knowing that the riddle possesses a solution, that the underlying writing finally comes from an intelligent being, and consequently that the problem proposed by nature has been posed in order to be solved, therefore, that its degree of difficulty is presumably measurable with the present and future capacities of humanity."

Science is first of all about discovery. But the more science knows, the more it realizes what it doesn't know.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#66107 Dec 19, 2012
Polymath and Postscript: Thanks for expanding my understanding of the subject. I guess I was being a bit of a jackass earlier... especially to DigitalDan (sorry again Dan). Sometimes I think science over-complicates things; but I understand the need. If we are ever going to save the human race, it won't be through our behavior here on earth. It will be because science finally figured out a way to get us the hell out of here. That's obviously going to take a thorough understanding of how things work at their most basic levels. Anyway... keep fighting the good fight fellas.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#66108 Dec 19, 2012
PS: What I meant by "save the human race" is prevent us from going extinct prematurely. We will obviously go extinct eventually one way or the other.

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min polymath257 244,642
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr emperorjohn 10,594
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 4 hr Anonymous1386 3
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr ChristineM 20,448
There is no meaning without God 7 hr Shizle 1
Atheist believe, they are just hiding!!! 14 hr Richardfs 17
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 15 hr Thinking 4
More from around the web