Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70634 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.

“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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66030 Dec 17, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
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.
Why?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#66031 Dec 17, 2012
Do any of them say Jesus did it? If not he won't be interested.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66032 Dec 17, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
You've given me links to experiments, rejected or reinterpreted what you call oversimplifications of the big bang theory. You have provided your take on the legitimate scientific version of creation using hypotheticals while carefully avoiding words like origin or beginning because you know as well as the lay public that the idea of spontaneous creation by accident is ridiculous. And yet you accept all of this as if it were settled fact! Your story goes like this

13.7 billion years ago our universe was a hot dense place even though nothing existed - no time, no god, no cause. Suddenly for no apparent reason it underwent an extraordinay expansion. We know this because "what happened before a nanosecond into expansion is not known and an actual beginning is not addressed." We have many hypothetical models however - many extentions of this basic big bang theory adding facts to our understanding although "we cannot, as yet, distinquish between these different models observationally" and there is "presently no way to produce the energies required to really test quantum gravity."

Really? Even a kindergartner would give you a thumbs down on this specious collection of unsubstantiated fabrications. Science can give us technologically sophisticated trinkets and gadgets to keep us entertained but it still cannot answer these ageless questions - where did we come from, why are we here and where are we going?
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66033 Dec 17, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would be very careful about any article about science that is written by a journalist.
I see. Anyone who disagrees with you should be avoided at all costs, even if that individual has a degree in physics, is currently involved in plasma cosmology research and just might know what he's talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/28/science/nov...

The Wright brothers were not scientists. They were bicycle mechanics who never graduated from school. Yet they used intelligence, experience, and ingenuity to prove the scientific dictum of their day wrong - that heavier than air machines could not fly. Edison was not a degreed scientist either but his inventions literally changed the world.

Because of your belief that only conventional science has the answers, you willingly accept its ideas about reality without question and reject everything else. This is not the behavior of a someone who seeks the truth. This is the behavior of someone who has allowed himself to become a victim of scientific dogma.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66034 Dec 17, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You've given me links to experiments, rejected or reinterpreted what you call oversimplifications of the big bang theory. You have provided your take on the legitimate scientific version of creation using hypotheticals while carefully avoiding words like origin or beginning because you know as well as the lay public that the idea of spontaneous creation by accident is ridiculous. And yet you accept all of this as if it were settled fact! Your story goes like this
13.7 billion years ago our universe was a hot dense place even though nothing existed - no time, no god, no cause. Suddenly for no apparent reason it underwent an extraordinay expansion. We know this because "what happened before a nanosecond into expansion is not known and an actual beginning is not addressed." We have many hypothetical models however - many extentions of this basic big bang theory adding facts to our understanding although "we cannot, as yet, distinquish between these different models observationally" and there is "presently no way to produce the energies required to really test quantum gravity."
Really? Even a kindergartner would give you a thumbs down on this specious collection of unsubstantiated fabrications. Science can give us technologically sophisticated trinkets and gadgets to keep us entertained but it still cannot answer these ageless questions - where did we come from, why are we here and where are we going?
Kindergartner is about the same level of understanding of physics as you, so the analogy is apt.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66035 Dec 17, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Kindergartner is about the same level of understanding of physics as you, so the analogy is apt.
Fortunately for you stupidity is not a crime.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66036 Dec 17, 2012
Both religion and science speak of beginnings and endings, and simply because our perception of time is distorted and beginnings and endings seem to be inseparable, valid events. Time is simultaneous - everything exists at once. The limited neurological patterning of our brains, is largely responsible for what we think of as ordinary consecutive time. We perceive events as strung out on a string like beads giving the illusion of past, present and future. Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously.

There is not just one universe but an infinite variety of probable existences far more vast than those aspects familiar to quantum physicists. We have probable selves living in probable earth realities.

Many of our problems result from "true" spiritual ignorance. As man's inner abilities are accepted and developed, the results will be a different kind of existence - a more altruistic existence. Man will have far greater resources at his command. The development of inner abilities will activate new areas in the brain making an expansive view of reality possible. No gender will be considered better than the other, or any role in society, when each individual is aware of his multidimensional nature, aware of his or her own experience at many levels of society, in many roles and in many realities.

An open-ended consciousness will feel its connection with and responsibility towards all other living things. The necessity for controlled population will be understood - there will be no "surplus" children. The continuity of consciousness (immortality) will become apparent. As a result of all this the social and governmental structures will change, for they are based upon our current limiting beliefs.

All things have consciousness. With an ability to merge consciousnesses, we will no longer need to manipulate our environment with destructive scientific tools in order to understand or enhance it. We will become mental astronauts for example, traveling to different systems through altered states of consciousness, eliminating a need for cumbersome equipment to keep the body physical alive.

When we understand the electromagnetic nature of thought and emotion, we will accelerate and direct that energy to our advantage and in ways as yet inconceivable. Inner doorways to knowledge are available to all, opening them will eliminate the need for education as we understand it. Physical ailments are symbolic of inner conflicts. Once this interior drama is understood, the body's natural healing ability will be utilized to maintain optimal health without the need of physicians and hospitals.

These alterations are "spiritual" changes that will become a living part of individual existence -where psychic frameworks rather than physical ones form the foundation for civilization.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66037 Dec 17, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately for you stupidity is not a crime.
You must work in a theater.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66038 Dec 17, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You must work in a theater.
Speaking of theater, physical existence is a stage where various scenarios designed to develop consciousness are played out. It's a training system for emerging human consciousness. Before we can be allowed into systems of reality that are more extensive and open, we must first learn to handle energy and see through physical materialization, the concrete result of thought and emotion. This is the "purpose" for physical existence as we know it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#66039 Dec 17, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
where did we come from, why are we here and where are we going?
Science does answer where we came from. The why we are here is a meaningless human centric question with no real answer. The where we are going part nobody can answer.

For all your degrees in physics you're still an idiot when it comes to proving god is real.

Thankfully only a few scientists bandy around their degrees as a way to mislead lay people into thinking their opinions about god matter in the slightest.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66040 Dec 17, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. Anyone who disagrees with you should be avoided at all costs, even if that individual has a degree in physics, is currently involved in plasma cosmology research and just might know what he's talking about.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/28/science/nov...
Plasma cosmology was investigated for a time, but is unable to explain a great number of things, from the specifics of the background radiation, to the formation of galaxies, etc. That your article is from 1989 and since a LOT has happened in cosmology in the last 15 years, you might want to update your understanding. Since our ability to detect and analyze the background radiation has increased so much recently, speculations that would be possible 25 years ago are simply excluded by the evidence now.
The Wright brothers were not scientists. They were bicycle mechanics who never graduated from school. Yet they used intelligence, experience, and ingenuity to prove the scientific dictum of their day wrong - that heavier than air machines could not fly. Edison was not a degreed scientist either but his inventions literally changed the world.
And yet all of them were heavily involved in experimentation and observation--the essences of science.
Because of your belief that only conventional science has the answers, you willingly accept its ideas about reality without question and reject everything else. This is not the behavior of a someone who seeks the truth. This is the behavior of someone who has allowed himself to become a victim of scientific dogma.
No, I accept that all answers in science may be subsumed by new ideas when new observations open up. Science is evidence driven and new evidence may require us to re-think our explanations. But what you find is that explanations that worked 50 or 100 years ago still work, but are considered to be approximations now.

Who said I accept these ideas without question? It it *you* that is accepting ideas without evidence, without anything other than your personal feelings that your ideas should be true. I have questioned the standard model---like I said, I was actually hoping that a modified gravity theory would come out on top. But my intuition was wrong (note: intuition is not a reliable guide to reality) and the evidence showed that even modified gravity theories require dark matter to work.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66041 Dec 17, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Science does answer where we came from. The why we are here is a meaningless human centric question with no real answer. The where we are going part nobody can answer.
For all your degrees in physics you're still an idiot when it comes to proving god is real.
Thankfully only a few scientists bandy around their degrees as a way to mislead lay people into thinking their opinions about god matter in the slightest.
Don't worry. Many other illiterates like yourself, don't get it either.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66042 Dec 17, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You've given me links to experiments, rejected or reinterpreted what you call oversimplifications of the big bang theory. You have provided your take on the legitimate scientific version of creation using hypotheticals while carefully avoiding words like origin or beginning because you know as well as the lay public that the idea of spontaneous creation by accident is ridiculous. And yet you accept all of this as if it were settled fact!
it is settled fact that the universe is expanding. it is settled fact that it was once much hotter and denser and more uniform than it is now. THAT is what the Big Bang theory talks about, NOT the origin of the universe, but a much earlier stage of the universe.
Your story goes like this
13.7 billion years ago our universe was a hot dense place even though nothing existed - no time, no god, no cause. Suddenly for no apparent reason it underwent an extraordinay expansion.
No, that is not what I said. Your pre-school ideas about cosmology are the problem here.
We know this because "what happened before a nanosecond into expansion is not known and an actual beginning is not addressed."
Hmmm...seems like I am pointing out exactly what we do NOT know. Did you miss that?
We have many hypothetical models however - many extentions of this basic big bang theory adding facts to our understanding although "we cannot, as yet, distinquish between these different models observationally" and there is "presently no way to produce the energies required to really test quantum gravity."
yes, once again, science is evidence driven. Without sufficient evidence, we only have speculation.
Really? Even a kindergartner would give you a thumbs down on this specious collection of unsubstantiated fabrications. Science can give us technologically sophisticated trinkets and gadgets to keep us entertained but it still cannot answer these ageless questions - where did we come from, why are we here and where are we going?
No, you just don't like the answers it gives.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66043 Dec 17, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said I accept these ideas without question? It it *you* that is accepting ideas without evidence, without anything other than your personal feelings ......
Correction. Personal experience through meditation techniques.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66044 Dec 17, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction. Personal experience through meditation techniques.
No, his wording was saying the same thing, just more blunt. However, I'd wager he is wrong, I'm betting you use drugs too.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 min Dr Guru 217,148
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 6 min thetruth 20,210
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 19 min OzRitz 60,204
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 21 min Lord Satan 199,570
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 21 min IND 229,139
News National Rifle Assn. steps up to aid Donald Tru... 35 min serfs up 21
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Agents of Corruption 388,515
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 1 hr Crystal_Clear722 3,674
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 hr President Trump 1,396,590
News Boston Globe's front page: AR-15, 'Make It Stop' 6 hr Retired SOF 596
More from around the web