Atheist Islamophobia... Again

Atheist Islamophobia... Again

There are 3765 comments on the Religion Dispatched story from Apr 9, 2013, titled Atheist Islamophobia... Again. In it, Religion Dispatched reports that:

Sparked by a Richard Dawkins tweet , in which he drew a parallel between Islamists and Nazis, Nathan Lean recently suggested on Salon.com that the most famous representatives of the new atheism "flirt with" Islamophobia [echoing Chris Stedman's prescient warning to fellow atheists on RD this past August]. As the article explains, Dawkins, Hitchens ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Religion Dispatched.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2565 Jun 22, 2013
Please please wrote:
Such hatred here.
typical of the religious cult members...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2566 Jun 22, 2013
Please please wrote:
Such hatred here.
Indeed.

It's as I have come to expect, from True Believers™.

A faith-based outlook **does** lead to hate, after all

This is because faith is basically a lie, told so frequently, that the fact it's a lie is sometimes forgotten.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2567 Jun 22, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so you are saying gravity isn't there because we don't fully understand it?

your level of scientific understanding is limited to parroting crap you dig off insane cult sites...
Nope, dolt!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2568 Jun 22, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so you are saying gravity isn't there because we don't fully understand it?

your level of scientific understanding is limited to parroting crap you dig off insane cult sites...
Oh ya Nova real cult stuff there.

In case you were just hatched today I'll point out that Nova is an atheist program.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2569 Jun 22, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>typical of the religious cult members...
Yup those Topix atheist are full of it.
Isn't that so mr. Woody dick?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2570 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, dolt!
but the theory doesnt explain it all, so it must be thrown out. no gravity, right?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2571 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
In case you were just hatched today I'll point out that Nova is an atheist program.
Indeed it is.

This is why Nova is so factual and such a reliable source of useful information about reality.

Good catch!

“My name is Trunks...”

Since: Jun 10

the alternate future

#2573 Jun 22, 2013
Atheists know more about the bible than Christians themselves, you know. It's why we're not religious-I'm sure if any of you took the time to read through that book and see the vile things justified in it, you'd become an atheist in a heartbeat.
LNC Llin

United States

#2574 Jun 22, 2013
Lelouch0 wrote:
Atheists know more about the bible than Christians themselves, you know. It's why we're not religious-I'm sure if any of you took the time to read through that book and see the vile things justified in it, you'd become an atheist in a heartbeat.
Generalization seems amusing.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2575 Jun 22, 2013
LNC Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Generalization seems amusing.
you have done it quite often...hypocrite much?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#2576 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh ya Nova real cult stuff there.
In case you were just hatched today I'll point out that Nova is an atheist program.
Yeah, and nothing you posted from it supports any god.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#2577 Jun 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mid 13th to late 14th:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_...
"The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth commonly associated with the crucifixion and burial of Jesus Christ, has undergone numerous scientific tests, the most notable of which is radiocarbon dating, in an attempt to determine the relic's authenticity. In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of 1260–1390CE, which coincides with the first appearance of the shroud in France in the 1350s.[1]
So the shroud appeared during what was the most couurpt period of Church History-the Babylonian captivity of the Church, when the kings of France installed the popes as their own puppets. How coincidental.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#2578 Jun 23, 2013
Typo-corrupt

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2579 Jun 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
And that change can be as small as considering otherwise neglected factors to as large as complete elimination and starting again.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
All branches *to which it applies*.
From Nova:
"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.
BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...
...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects,
like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.
So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.
Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
Which only shows the necessity of a quantum theory of gravity. Greene was proposing string theory because it *does* merge QM and GR.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2580 Jun 23, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> So the shroud appeared during what was the most couurpt period of Church History-the Babylonian captivity of the Church, when the kings of France installed the popes as their own puppets. How coincidental.
Exactly.
LNC Llin

United States

#2581 Jun 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and nothing you posted from it supports any god.
People who wish You well may be theists, agnostics and/or atheists.
People of good will may be found with differing beliefs?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2582 Jun 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but the theory doesnt explain it all, so it must be thrown out. no gravity, right?
Dolt! You are just showing off you ignorance. But nothing new about that.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2583 Jun 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, and nothing you posted from it supports any god.
But it supports your theory's. LOL

Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...

...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...

and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.

BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"

These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.

Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2584 Jun 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>And that change can be as small as considering otherwise neglected factors to as large as complete elimination and starting again.
[QUOTE]A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science."

All branches *to which it applies*.

[QUOTE]. Greene was proposing string theory because it *does* merge QM and GR.
That conflict was reflected in the title of the museum event, the Hayden Planetarium’s 10th annual Isaac AsimovMemorial Debate:“The Theory of Everything ... Still Searching?” The five professors were introduced and seated, and the TV was turned on. There appeared the head of a sixth professor:Brian Greene of Columbia University, author of several popular science books including The Hidden Reality (which just hit stores and discusses extra dimensions and parallel universes), who joined the panel from out of town via Skype. Planetarium director Neil deGrasse Tysonreminded the crowd that Greene had appeared on the very first Asimov panel back in 2001, which also tangled with string theory. That was shortly after he helped found Columbia’s Institute of Strings, Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (ISCAP).

Tyson asked Greene to boil string theory down to one sentence.“It will be a long sentence,” Greene replied.

A unified theory is something of a Holy Grail in physics, and a long line of brilliant minds from Einstein on down have failed to craft one that can be proven to work. The trick has been to find a single theory that explains all of physics, from the quantum forces that control subatomic particles to the relativity that holds sway over the greater cosmos.

Consider, for example, black holes. These objects, formed from collapsed stars, are believed to be compressed to a size that reaches the atomic level. But no physical law has ever been devised to explain how gravity works at that scale. Einstein’s laws and those of quantum dynamics each work well in their own realm, explained Greene, but become “fierce antagonists” when you try to meld them.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2585 Jun 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Dolt! You are just showing off you ignorance. But nothing new about that.
no, you are just showing off your ignorance of these theories you think you can debunk.

even though we don't fully understand everything about gravity, our theory gives us enough to land a teeny satellite on a spinning, rotating asteroid millions of miles away, or on the moons of Saturn.

we can even calculate the time dilation caused by the gravity well of the Earth warping space-time and use that for correct GPS location...

so you think this theory should be thrown out even though it works quite well for the technological level we are at now...

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) 3 hr Regolith Based Li... 78,489
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 hr Science 1,322
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr Science 32,431
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... Aug 12 Eagle 12 - 1,152
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web