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: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2609 Jun 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>No, actually, it does not. Your God went out with the middle ages and has never recovered, in spite of the flailing of the apologists.
Ummm..... No clue here. But then what's new.

I was agreeing with KK on the correct spelling of Theories.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2610 Jun 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong!
It is you that can't grasp that your two biggies are not all encompassing theory's (theories) they are just good equation nothing more.
Oh and don't tell me what I understand.
You don't know me and you don't know my qualifications.
you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#2611 Jun 24, 2013
"It was a bit big and a bit bangy?"
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.
tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2612 Jun 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong!
It is you that can't grasp that your two biggies are not all encompassing theory's (theories) they are just good equation nothing more.
Oh and don't tell me what I understand.
You don't know me and you don't know my qualifications.
I can tell your qualifications are minimal. Based on what you write, you do not understand what it means to be a scientific theory or how science is actually done, even by the experts.

A scientific theory, in spite of your quotes, does not have to be universally applicable. If that were required, there would be no scientific theories. For example, the Bronsted theory of acids does not apply to stellar structure. They are simply two separate theories.

You are correct, QM and GR are NOT all-encompassing theories. QM does not apply to cases of large masses and GR does not apply to atomic level phenomena and smaller. But they are still scientific theories. That you don't grasp that shows your qualifications are next to non-existent.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2613 Jun 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong!
It is you that can't grasp that your two biggies are not all encompassing theory's (theories) they are just good equation nothing more.
Even writing this shows you don't understand either theory. Also, you don't seem to realize that what *makes* a scientific theory a good one is that it *works* in practice. Observations are the ultimate authority for science.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#2614 Jun 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm..... No clue here. But then what's new.
I was agreeing with KK on the correct spelling of Theories.
I did not notice that post of yours, it does make you look honest if you did. ;)

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2615 Jun 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
"It was a bit big and a bit bangy?"
<quoted text>
quite...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2616 Jun 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>I can tell your qualifications are minimal. Based on what you write, you do not understand what it means to be a scientific theory or how science is actually done, even by the experts.

A scientific theory, in spite of your quotes, does not have to be universally applicable. If that were required, there would be no scientific theories. For example, the Bronsted theory of acids does not apply to stellar structure. They are simply two separate theories.

You are correct, QM and GR are NOT all-encompassing theories. QM does not apply to cases of large masses and GR does not apply to atomic level phenomena and smaller. But they are still scientific theories. That you don't grasp that shows your qualifications are next to non-existent.
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.

This guy is miles above you, I'll take his word for it. Plus it helps me bug you :)

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2617 Jun 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Even writing this shows you don't understand either theory. Also, you don't seem to realize that what *makes* a scientific theory a good one is that it *works* in practice. Observations are the ultimate authority for science.
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...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2618 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>I did not notice that post of yours, it does make you look honest if you did. ;)
I did. You were right I was spelling it incorrectly.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2619 Jun 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
This guy is miles above you, I'll take his word for it. Plus it helps me bug you :)
ummmm...einstein didn't make any laws. he developed a theory to explain some of them...

you really are not up to this level of discussion, are you?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2620 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
I know this is over your head but here goes anyways:

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

Exploding the Big Bang Theory

Originally, the Big Bang Theory was being used to explain the beginning of the universe. Now more and more people are seeing this huge event less as the actual beginning and more as a massive event unto itself. However, many still claim the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and this article is evidence that this is probably a false claim.

This article will not involve any mathematical calculations or anything too difficult to understand. The purpose of this article is to explain in simple language why a "Big Bang" if they do exist, was not the creation of the universe.

First off we must explain the Big Bang Theory and then give the arguments that we will be dispelling.

The theory actually has multiple formations and differences in details depending on who you talk to.(Time frame, speed differences, etc.) However since we will be discussing the overall generalities and not the mathematical details, we won't bother with those differences.

The overall Big Bang theory states that the universe started from an incredibly dense singularity that exploded. All matter, light and energy came from that explosion. The size of the universe increases as everything expands from this explosion. The theory is that of an expanding universe, meaning that the universe as a whole is expanding, instead of a static universe meaning that matter is expanding into a statically sized space. The theory states that the size of the universe is equal to the speed of light (the item furthest away from the explosion as possible) times the age of the explosion. In simpler terms, the light created from the explosion is expanding in equal directions and they represent the edge of the universe.

That's it in a nutshell. Now let's look at the problems with this theory.

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

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2621 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
Part 2

Issue #1: Problem of Size

First we must remember the definition of the term "universe". Basic definitions state: "Everything that exists anywhere", "The whole collection of existing things", "Everything stated or assumed in a given discussion", etc. That means all substance, energy and the space in between.

Regardless of the size of the universe, let's pretend that we are at the edge where the "universe defining light" is speeding its way out. Here's a simple question: Is the area 1/2 inch ahead of the light wave part of the universe? Of course it is. It's just as much a part of this universe as the space between the Sun and Earth is. Empty space is also a part of "everything that exists anywhere". No one would deny that.

OK, so if the area 1/2 inch ahead of the light wave is part of the universe, what about a foot ahead? What about a mile? What about a million miles? It's all empty space according to the theory.

Or is it? Remember, the current Big Bang theory is an expanding theory, not a static theory.

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

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2622 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
Part 3

Issue #2: Problem of expanding

The expanding universe theory is often compared to a balloon being blown up. As the balloon expands the amount of space available also expands. The problem of an expanding universe is that it must expand INTO something. If there's anything to expand into, that space must, as shown above, belong in the universe.

But where did all that empty space come from, and why are they forgetting that it's also part of the universe? This seems to be a case of people forgetting what the term universe really refers to.

Issue #3: Problem of time

Along with the problem of empty space, the expansion theory also runs into the problem of time.

Let's look at the empty space ahead of the light waves again. Since we have shown that the empty space ahead of the waves is a part of the universe, let us go back in time 10 seconds.

Would the same empty space still be a part of the universe 10 seconds ago? The obvious answer is yes. Well what about 10 years ago? Long before the waves reaches the empty space, it is still a part of the universe.

Taking this to it's furthest conclusion, would that same space ahead of today's light waves still be a part of this universe way back when the Big Bang happened only 1/2 second ago? The answer again is yes.

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

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2623 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
Part 4

Issue #4: Problem with light at zero MPH

What does the universe look like when light is reduced to 0mph or is stopped altogether?

One of the main parts of the big bang theory is that we will eventually see a contraction. That is, eventually the expansion will stop, and the natural gravitational forces will pull everything back together over a long period of time until it is all collected into the same singularity from which the Big Bang happened and everything will start all over again. This is generally referred to as the Big Crunch.

The important consequence of this theory is that it will pull everything, matter and light back into the crunch to begin the process. If anything is left outside the Big Crunch before it explodes again, then this, by definition contradicts the concept of the Big Bang being the start of everything. Also if you consider a universe to contain a huge, but ultimately finite amount of matter and photons, then if everything is not sucked back in with each crunch, even if that amount is only an amount of photons, then the bang gets smaller and smaller with each instance. Also that would mean that the universe is equal in size to the speed of light times the time of the very first bang, if there ever was one. So the theory must maintain that the Big Crunch pulls EVERYTHING back in.

Well usually our attention is focused at the beginning (Big Bang) and the end (Big Crunch) but I think we need to look at the midpoint.

So let us imagine we are at the very outer reaches of space riding along with the furthest light waves in the universe. The time occurs when the gravity behind us is so great, we will go back to where we began.

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

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2624 Jun 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Notice the tense of that last statement. There *seemed* to be no way....

That is no longer true.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2625 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
Part 5

Or will we?

In this case, the gravitational forces must act upon the furthest light waves and slow them down little by little until...

We can imagine at some point the exact moment when the light waves reach their zenith where their outward force exactly matches the gravitational pull. In other words, light is stopped altogether. I'm sure Einstein would've loved to try to consider what this scenario should be like. Maybe he did. I'm not sure.

The most realistic way around this bizarre scenario is to imagine that the pull is not precise and simply turns the light wave in a large slowing arc until they head back in the other direction.

This case creates a possible scenario where if we place ourselves in the right place at the right time (In the light waves path on their return trip) It would be possible to look forward any observe the universe forming behind us. Of course we couldn't turn around and watch the crunch at the same time since the gravity would presumably pull all tell tale light back into itself. Again, this is a very strange effect to imagine.

In either case it is hard to imagine the situation of a gravity so strong that ALL light photons would eventually be stopped before reversing course or arcing back to the beginning. This is not to say that this can't happen, but on a universe wide scale this would indeed be an interesting phenomenon to work out.

Issue #5: Problem of the edge

Another problem with an expanding universe theory is the presupposition that an edge to the universe must exist.

We have already shown that the empty space ahead of all matter exists in the universe as well, so what is at the edge of the universe? Let's look at it logically.

Let us imagine the edge of all space and time as a barrier of some kind. An impenetrable barrier enclosing all space, both empty and occupied through which matter and time can not pass. The edge of the universe must be something of this nature, right?

Any barrier, no matter what shape, size, composition, thickness, etc. always has two important sides: The side holding the contents and the opposite side, which is furthest away from the contents. Both sides always have a defined edge and therefore something on the other side of each edge. In this theoretical case, one edge touches the universe.

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

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2626 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
Part 6

The simple question that should come to mind then is: What is at the other side of the barrier?

With this basic understanding, we must conclude that anything on the other side of this "barrier", even if it's pure empty space must also be a part of the universe. Even if the other side consists of space/matter that doesn't conform to any law of physics currently known to man, it does still exist, and therefore must be included in the list of "Everything that exists anywhere" and therefore is part of the universe.

This means that any imagined barrier to the universe can not exist.

OK so just for thoroughness let's take away an assumption: Let's assume that the aforementioned "barrier" has no other side. To do this it must be a barrier of infinite thickness. Anything less would create another "side" as mentioned above.

OK so we now have a barrier of unknown composition and infinite thickness enclosing the entire universe.

What's wrong with this picture? Simple: Any barrier, no matter what it's made of, how impenetrable or how thick is still a part of this universe. Even a barrier of a thickness of 10,001,000 googolplex light-years (Trust me that's VERY thick) is still a part of this universe. The fact that we can't analyze it, penetrate it or get any information on its internal composition doesn't mean that isn't a part of the universe.

So if the barrier to the universe is infinite in thickness and since the barrier is part of the universe, the universe is also infinite in size.

If no barrier to the universe exists, then the universe is still infinite in size.

If the outermost edge of the universe is completely empty space then the universe is still infinite in size.

Ultimate conclusion: The universe is infinite in size at all times.

Since this is the case, the big bang becomes not the creation of the universe, but only a major occurrence during its existence.

The birth of a tree
How old would a tree be in the year 2002 if the seed start sprouting back in 1921? The obvious answer is 81 years old.

But how old is the seed? How long did it exist before it started sprouting? How long ago was it on the tree from which it sprouted? How old is the mother tree?

The basic information given can't give us the full picture in terms of multigenerational questions.

If a Big Bang actually occurred, the most likely scenario is that is part of a cycle of explosion, contraction, explosion and contraction ad infinitum. One explosion is simply one generation of an infinite life span. In fact, my guess is that Big Bangs happen in multiple places at different times.

The second purpose of this article is to layout other truths in conjunction with dispelling the theory.

The universe is infinite in size and time
Time had no beginning and will have no end
In other words, the universe is infinite in size, has always existed and will never end.

Why do I believe these concepts? Simply because any other explanation I've found runs into many of the same problems. Mainly: "But what happened before that?"

The funny part is that most opponents to these truths I show usually don't like the concept of an infinitely sized, never-beginning, never-ending universe. Then they try to hurt these arguments with rebuttal theories involving something equally large such as an infinite sized barrier or an infinitely powered deity.

I would like to hear if you have another plausible more logical explanation than a never-ending universe.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2627 Jun 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
This guy is miles above you, I'll take his word for it. Plus it helps me bug you :)
And as I pointed out, we need a tested quantum theory of gravity. That doesn't make QM and GR unscientific.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2628 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
Was the BB an explosion?

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Astronomers Detect Most Powerful Explosion Since Big Bang

18 May 1998

The energy released in a cosmic gamma-rayburst detected in December 1997 is the most energy ever detected from an explosion in theUniverse, perhaps making it the most powerful explosion since the creation of the Universe in the Big Bang.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/ne...

big bang

(bg)
The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago.

Most astronomers now believe that the universe began around 12 billion years ago in a cataclysmic explosion we call the Big Bang

Most astronomers now believe that the universe began around 12 billion years ago in a cataclysmic explosion we call the Big Bang

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1...

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 48 min dollarsbill 4,988
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Dogen 85,627
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 12 hr emperorjohn 112
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Jan 17 ChristineM 4,026
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jan 16 Into The Night 5,146
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Jan 14 emperorjohn 1
More from around the web