[Ed] Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

DOC · 10th August 2008, 03:44 AM

This is to all extent and purposes just a rehash of a previous thread, I will leave this one open and close the "original" however any further such breaches (which you have been previously warned about) will result in further action which may include suspension or banning.

Posted By:Darat

Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size.

You might ask how could "all" of the matter of 10 billion trillion stars which exist in an estimated 100 billion galaxies come from something smaller than an atom. Here is how Hokuele says it is theorized to have happened by inflationary theory which some in this forum say or imply is modern mainline science:

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Sure, the inflationary theory of cosmology states that vacuum fluctuations resulted in a gravitational singularity. This is essentially a point of zero volume containing all of the mass and energy we see in the current universe. Since the volume was zero, density was infinite and spacetime essentially did not exist yet. General relativity indicates other values at infinity in this singularity as well, but most people are most aware of the density value. Just after t=0, known as the Inflationary Period, elementary particles began to separate out. Less than a second later, the fundamental forces separated as well.

One of the reasons it is known as inflationary cosmology is that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, at least not the type one normally thinks of. It is an expansion, separation, and cooling. Once things have cooled enough to allow for "normal" matter, the four fundamental forces, particularly gravity, take over and, ta-da!, here we are almost 14 billion years later.

Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of the 10 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact?

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

learner · 10th August 2008, 04:20 AM

I have always been an atheist. I was born that way and have remained unadulterated since. I have since learnt of the theory of the "big bang" (I think of it as a "big expansion") so i comply with your last paragraph. Having acquired this knowledge has upped my admiration of science and the scientific method. It in no way has increased, for me, the likelihood of a god or gods. Invoking a god or gods doesn't seem to me to be the way to answer any questions regarding the universe. The obvious problem of god origin arises. I appreciate that the idea, that all matter came from such a small source, is hard to comprehend. a god that did it is harder for me to comprehend... My view for what its worth.

wollery · 10th August 2008, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size.

You might ask how could "all" of the matter of 100 billion trillion stars which exist in an estimated 100 billion galaxies come from something smaller than an atom. Here is how Hokuele says it is theorized to have happened by inflationary theory which some in this forum say or imply is modern mainline science:

Why not quote an actual theoretical astrophysicist on this subject?

Quote:

Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of a 100 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom.

Which is completely consistent with everything that astronomers and physicists know about the Universe, and which, if anyone took a serious look at the data, would obviously follow from the evidence at hand.

Quote:

My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact?

No idea, but it's not relevant to the real question.

Quote:

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

Almost certainly not. But again, this is not relevant to the real question.

The real question is, why don't you make an effort to understand what the scientists are actually saying, and look at the evidence that they use to come to these conclusions, rather than skim reading what a single person on an internet forum presents as a simplified version, and presenting it (in strawman version) as some sort of vain attempt to prove that science says patently foolish things, and that all scientists are clearly idiots?

I have some questions for you DOC -

Do you understand the basic tenets of relativity? Do you understand the basic principles of the scientific method? Do you know how the evidence for the inflationary theory was gathered? Do you understand how the arguments for the inflationary theory developed from the evidence that was gathered? Do you understand what is meant by the term "Singularity"? Do you understand what is meant by the term "Quantum Fluctuation"?

If the answer to any of these is yes, then please provide the evidence to back up the assertion by explaining them in your own words.

matt.tansy · 10th August 2008, 04:33 AM

Did I know it? Yes
How many atheists know it? Most
If they didn't know it, would they then believe in the far more implausible
god theory? No

JoeEllison · 10th August 2008, 04:45 AM

Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism?

DOC? Why are you so eager to display and reinforce your own ignorance, instead of actually learning things?

learner · 10th August 2008, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism?

DOC? Why are you so eager to display and reinforce your own ignorance, instead of actually learning things?

Well said that man...

volatile · 10th August 2008, 04:59 AM

Can we have a forum book drive for this guy? He obviously needs to read something that isn't on a screen for once.

I'll gladly buy him an undergraduate cosmology textbook, if only I thought he'd read it.

devnull · 10th August 2008, 05:09 AM

this is just so sad..... its beyond words.

Mashuna · 10th August 2008, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of a 100 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact?

I've done thorough research on this question, ever since I saw it posed in the 'Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins' thread. I have polled over 4,000 self-described atheists, and here is the breakdown of the results.

81.7% Already knew this
17.4% Didn't know this, and when it was explained to them said 'Really? Huh, that's kind of cool. I didn't know that.' Interestingly, every single one of them used those exact words. I don't know why, but it's outside the scope of this particular poll. Maybe further research could be interesting.
1.8% Filled the poll in twice.

Originally Posted by DOC

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

As described above, my extensive research indicates no.

JoeEllison · 10th August 2008, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by volatile

Can we have a forum book drive for this guy? He obviously needs to read something that isn't on a screen for once.

I'll gladly buy him an undergraduate cosmology textbook, if only I thought he'd read it.

Same here... I've got some pretty good "layman" level books from real scientists too, that I would be willing to give DOC if I thought there was even 1 chance in 100 that he would give them a fair and honest reading.

DOC · 10th August 2008, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by learner

The obvious problem of god origin arises. I appreciate that the idea, that all matter came from such a small source, is hard to comprehend. a god that did it is harder for me to comprehend... My view for what its worth.

Well the God of Christianity is "eternal" by definition so the Christian God can't have an origin since He always existed. Scientists as little as 100 years ago believed the universe was eternal. But they now believe the universe had a definite beginning -- much like Genesis believes the universe had a definite beginning.

joobz · 10th August 2008, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Well the God of Christianity is "eternal" by definition so the Christian God can't have an origin since He always existed. Scientists as little as 100 years ago believed the universe was eternal. But they now believe the universe had a definite beginning, in the same way Genesis believes the universe had a beginning.

Are you saying that Universe was non-existent when it was a singularity?

volatile · 10th August 2008, 05:56 AM

Doc - I will buy you both Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable and Simon Singh's Big Bang if you promise to read them and review them here. Would you do that? Take the time to learn about the things you so lazily decry?

DOC · 10th August 2008, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism?

What are the serious strawman and illogical attacks on modern science and atheism?

Damien Evans · 10th August 2008, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size.

You might ask how could "all" of the matter of 10 billion trillion stars which exist in an estimated 100 billion galaxies come from something smaller than an atom. Here is how Hokuele says it is theorized to have happened by inflationary theory which some in this forum say or imply is modern mainline science:

Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of the 10 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact?

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

This isn't even worth the time to type a reply to.

joobz · 10th August 2008, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

What are the serious strawman and illogical attacks on modern science and atheism?

It's the implication that you ask. THe premise of this question (unlike your evolution one) is correct. Modern science theory does say that the entire universe was at one time smaller than a pea.

Now, you imply much in this question. And that is what people are taking objection with. In a direct analogy, how do you feel about the question:
Do most christians know that they practice ritualistic canabalism?

DOC · 10th August 2008, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

Are you saying that Universe was non-existent when it was a singularity?

How can you say it "was" a singularity, and what is your definition of a singularity.

JoeEllison · 10th August 2008, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

What are the serious strawman and illogical attacks on modern science and atheism?

You don't actually know anything about science, or even basic English. For instance, you don't understand that "zero volume" doesn't mean"smaller than a pea", or what a "singularity" is, or how all the evidence and math works. So, your description is a strawman. You don't have the foundation to talk about the subject, you've shown no interest in gaining that background, so all of your comments based on second- and third-hand incomplete layman's descriptions are strawmen by definition. You are ignorant in the literal sense: you just don't know what you are talking about.

Then, based on your ignorance, you go after atheists who are "ignorant" only in the sense that you are saying things that they "don't know" because you are saying things that aren't true, and that science doesn't say. Furthermore, your claim that doubts about specific scientific theories somehow mean that your religious viewpoint has any validity is an illogical position... a pathetic joke of a position, truth be told. If it turns out that science is wrong on something, it doesn't make your superstition any less foolish and ignorant, period. One has nothing to do with another.

DOC · 10th August 2008, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

It's the implication that you ask. THe premise of this question (unlike your evolution one) is correct. Modern science theory does say that the entire universe was at one time smaller than a pea.

Now, you imply much in this question. And that is what people are taking objection with...

What am I implying and what are people objecting to?

volatile · 10th August 2008, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

How can you say it "was" a singularity, and what is your definition of a singularity.

If I buy you Singh's excellent, readable book which will explain just that in interesting detail and easy-to-understand prose, will you read it? In other words - do you really want the answers to this question or are you just content to believe what you were told first?

Please, I'm serious. I am pretty much broke, but I will gladly spend my own money on two wonderful books that will answer all the silly questions ypu persist on posting here. Will you accept my offer? It is conditional on you reading them and posting reviews of your thoughts on them here.

DOC · 10th August 2008, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

You don't actually know anything about science, or even basic English. For instance, you don't understand that "zero volume" doesn't mean"smaller than a pea", or what a "singularity" is, or how all the evidence and math works.

It doesn't matter what I know and don't know; this thread is not about DOC. If I said anything wrong in this thread state what I said is wrong. Please list all the things I said in this thread that are wrong.

bokonon · 10th August 2008, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Well the God of Christianity is "eternal" by definition so the Christian God can't have an origin since He always existed.

Did you ever wonder what he did during all those billions of jillions of trillions of zillions of years of eternality before he "created the heaven and the earth" a mere 6000 (spit!) years ago? Just floating in the vast void, no one to talk to, nothing to look at, solitary confinement in a sensory deprivation chamber from which escape was impossible, eon after lonely eon of endless ennui, as the eons themselves smeared together into units of unimaginable cosmological boredom, uninterrupted, neverending...

The drone of nothingness drove him mad. Most Christians don't know that, because the backstory of the bible has been suppressed. "In the beginning," they say.

Not even close...

joobz · 10th August 2008, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

How can you say it "was" a singularity, and what is your definition of a singularity.

a singularity is a point of infinite mass and zero volume. We extrapolate that fact due to 1.) Cosmic background radiation and 2.) the expansion of the universe.

So, now, Answer me. Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?

joobz · 10th August 2008, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

What am I implying and what are people objecting to?

You're implying that if people realized what science said about the universe, that they would find it so improbable as to discount it and turn towards religion.

n much the same way, my questions
Do most christians know that they practice ritualistic canabalism?
The implication is clear, If people knew that thier religion revered a horribly amoral and evil practice (canabalism), they may start questioning other aspects of thier faith.

JoeEllison · 10th August 2008, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

It doesn't matter what I know and don't know; this thread is not about DOC. If I said anything wrong in this thread state what I said is wrong. Please list all the things I said in this thread that are wrong.

It has already been pointed out. We know you're too lazy to learn anything about science, but you could at least read your own threads.

triadboy · 10th August 2008, 06:39 AM

DOC - you may have a misunderstanding embedded in your brain. When the singularity expanded it didn't throw out a bunch of planets and stars - it expanded into a hot 'soup'. Over billion of years, gravitational forces and thermonuclear activities made the stars - then the stars made the matter you now see.

Delvo · 10th August 2008, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism?

DOC? Why are you so eager to display and reinforce your own ignorance, instead of actually learning things?

I don't know much about DOC, but I do know that whatever you're accusing him of wasn't done in this thread. So either it's false, or it applies to something else somewhere else and should be left there, not dragged over here. And it's ad-hominem, having nothing to do with the point.

However, DOC, I don't know what the point is. What makes you wonder whether most atheists know this, or suspect that they wouldn't? And what effects would you expect that it might have on their religion/philosophy, and why would you expect any at all? I don't get where this question came from or where it's going. It's like seeing someone ask whether most left-handed people know that most lumber comes from pine trees and whether that knowledge would affect their typing speed. That lack of context or explanation (plus perhaps your previous posting history) might be why people seem to think that you mean this stuff to somehow imply that familiarity with the Big Bang would make atheists not be atheists anymore.

Ladewig · 10th August 2008, 06:41 AM

I knew it.

DOC, just because you can't comprehend the idea that the universe began with the big bang does not mean other people cannot comprehend it.

Let me describe the problem another way. Let's say that I found it inconceivable that Christians would worship God if they knew that He instructed people to execute rape victims. If I ran over to a Christian board and said "How many Christians know that the Bible instructs its followers to kill rape victims" would my message really convert anyone? Would you change your beliefs if I asked that question? Would the people you know change their beliefs?

. . . . . . .

citation - Deuteronomy 22:23-24

volatile · 10th August 2008, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

I don't get where this question came from or where it's going.

Welcome to the forum. You've not been here long, have you?

JoeEllison · 10th August 2008, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

I don't know much about DOC, but I do know that whatever you're accusing him of wasn't done in this thread. So either it's false, or it applies to something else somewhere else and should be left there, not dragged over here. And it's ad-hominem, having nothing to do with the point.

You don't understand what ad hominem means, then. When someone frequently lies and demonstrates ignorance on various subjects, pointing out their dishonesty and ignorance isn't an illogical thing to do. An ad hominem would be to claim that he must be wrong because he smells bad or because he kicks puppies. Not that I'm saying anything of the sort, just giving examples.

Also, you'll learn over time that sometimes it is best to just cut to the chase with some people. DOC isn't asking a question, he's making an attack and sticking a question mark on the end of it.That's his pattern, that's what he does.

Tricky · 10th August 2008, 06:57 AM

Do most theists know that there is nothing in the Big Bang theory that requires divine intervention? If DOC is any indication, then the answer is "no".

DOC · 10th August 2008, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

I've done thorough research on this question, ever since I saw it posed in the 'Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins' thread. I have polled over 4,000 self-described atheists, and here is the breakdown of the results.

81.7% Already knew this
17.4% Didn't know this, and when it was explained to them said 'Really? Huh, that's kind of cool. I didn't know that.' Interestingly, every single one of them used those exact words. I don't know why, but it's outside the scope of this particular poll. Maybe further research could be interesting.
1.8% Filled the poll in twice.

As described above, my extensive research indicates no.

How did you contact 4000 atheists? And what was the exact question you asked them? And what were the "exact words that every single one of them used?

Fitter · 10th August 2008, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

How did you contact 4000 atheists? And what was the exact question you asked them? And what were the "exact words that every single one of them used?

Why do you want to know this? Does it contradict your own "solid research" in the "Most atheists do not know..." thread?

DOC · 10th August 2008, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

a singularity is a point of infinite mass and zero volume.

What is your source for this definition.

DOC · 10th August 2008, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Fitter

Why do you want to know this? Does it contradict your own "solid research" in the "Most atheists do not know..." thread?

Just curious how 4000 atheists were contacted to do a poll.

joobz · 10th August 2008, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

What is your source for this definition.

http://www.123exp-astronomy.com/t/01564079733/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
Stephen Hawkins, "A Brief History of Time."
among many many others.

I have now answered your question directly and honestly.
So, now, Answer me. Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?

Mister Agenda · 10th August 2008, 07:27 AM

Has anyone ever noticed that in order to get a joke, you have to have a sense of humor that's up to the challenge?

Mashuna · 10th August 2008, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

How did you contact 4000 atheists? And what was the exact question you asked them? And what were the "exact words that every single one of them used?

I stood in the centre of Manchester with a clipboard, and asked people as they walked past.

I asked if they were an atheist, then if they said yes, I asked them if they knew that 100 billion galaxies came from a thing smaller than a pea.

The exact words that every single one of the 17.4% who were unaware of this, were as I originally quoted, namely 'Really? Huh, that's kind of cool. I didn't know that.' Every one of them said exactly that, word for word.

DOC · 10th August 2008, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

http://www.123exp-astronomy.com/t/01564079733/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
Stephen Hawkins, "A Brief History of Time."
among many many others.

I have now answered your question directly and honestly.
So, now, Answer me. Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?

You haven't answered my question, I asked where did you get the definition that:

"a singularity is a point of infinite mass and zero volume."

I see that definition nowhere in the sites you provided. Nowhere do I see it say that a singularity is a point of infinite mass and zero volume.

gentlehorse · 10th August 2008, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

Every one of them said exactly that, word for word.

Really? Huh, that's kind of cool.

10th August 2008, 04:20 AM	#2
learner Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Location: dorset england Posts: 1,589	I have always been an atheist. I was born that way and have remained unadulterated since. I have since learnt of the theory of the "big bang" (I think of it as a "big expansion") so i comply with your last paragraph. Having acquired this knowledge has upped my admiration of science and the scientific method. It in no way has increased, for me, the likelihood of a god or gods. Invoking a god or gods doesn't seem to me to be the way to answer any questions regarding the universe. The obvious problem of god origin arises. I appreciate that the idea, that all matter came from such a small source, is hard to comprehend. a god that did it is harder for me to comprehend... My view for what its worth.
	__________________ "I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave " How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again Last edited by learner; 10th August 2008 at 04:27 AM.

10th August 2008, 04:25 AM	#3
wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Land of Eternal Hope Posts: 10,319	Originally Posted by DOC Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size. You might ask how could "all" of the matter of 100 billion trillion stars which exist in an estimated 100 billion galaxies come from something smaller than an atom. Here is how Hokuele says it is theorized to have happened by inflationary theory which some in this forum say or imply is modern mainline science: Why not quote an actual theoretical astrophysicist on this subject? Quote: Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of a 100 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. Which is completely consistent with everything that astronomers and physicists know about the Universe, and which, if anyone took a serious look at the data, would obviously follow from the evidence at hand. Quote: My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact? No idea, but it's not relevant to the real question. Quote: And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God? Almost certainly not. But again, this is not relevant to the real question. The real question is, why don't you make an effort to understand what the scientists are actually saying, and look at the evidence that they use to come to these conclusions, rather than skim reading what a single person on an internet forum presents as a simplified version, and presenting it (in strawman version) as some sort of vain attempt to prove that science says patently foolish things, and that all scientists are clearly idiots? I have some questions for you DOC - Do you understand the basic tenets of relativity? Do you understand the basic principles of the scientific method? Do you know how the evidence for the inflationary theory was gathered? Do you understand how the arguments for the inflationary theory developed from the evidence that was gathered? Do you understand what is meant by the term "Singularity"? Do you understand what is meant by the term "Quantum Fluctuation"? If the answer to any of these is yes, then please provide the evidence to back up the assertion by explaining them in your own words.
	__________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

10th August 2008, 04:53 AM	#6
learner Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Location: dorset england Posts: 1,589	Originally Posted by JoeEllison Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism? DOC? Why are you so eager to display and reinforce your own ignorance, instead of actually learning things? Well said that man...
	__________________ "I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave " How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again

10th August 2008, 04:59 AM	#7
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,730	Can we have a forum book drive for this guy? He obviously needs to read something that isn't on a screen for once. I'll gladly buy him an undergraduate cosmology textbook, if only I thought he'd read it.
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

10th August 2008, 05:09 AM	#8
devnull Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 4,533	this is just so sad..... its beyond words.
	__________________ no, i don't think i need to read naturalistic literature more accurately, to be convinced its true. - Gibhor

10th August 2008, 04:33 AM	#4
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Groton, CT Posts: 802	Did I know it? Yes How many atheists know it? Most If they didn't know it, would they then believe in the far more implausible god theory? No

10th August 2008, 04:45 AM	#5
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism? DOC? Why are you so eager to display and reinforce your own ignorance, instead of actually learning things?

10th August 2008, 05:17 AM	#9
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,581	Originally Posted by DOC Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of a 100 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact? I've done thorough research on this question, ever since I saw it posed in the 'Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins' thread. I have polled over 4,000 self-described atheists, and here is the breakdown of the results. 81.7% Already knew this 17.4% Didn't know this, and when it was explained to them said 'Really? Huh, that's kind of cool. I didn't know that.' Interestingly, every single one of them used those exact words. I don't know why, but it's outside the scope of this particular poll. Maybe further research could be interesting. 1.8% Filled the poll in twice. Originally Posted by DOC And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God? As described above, my extensive research indicates no.
	__________________ GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and put in a random number. Anti-social experiment.

10th August 2008, 05:28 AM	#10
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by volatile Can we have a forum book drive for this guy? He obviously needs to read something that isn't on a screen for once. I'll gladly buy him an undergraduate cosmology textbook, if only I thought he'd read it. Same here... I've got some pretty good "layman" level books from real scientists too, that I would be willing to give DOC if I thought there was even 1 chance in 100 that he would give them a fair and honest reading.

10th August 2008, 05:52 AM	#11
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,752	Originally Posted by learner The obvious problem of god origin arises. I appreciate that the idea, that all matter came from such a small source, is hard to comprehend. a god that did it is harder for me to comprehend... My view for what its worth. Well the God of Christianity is "eternal" by definition so the Christian God can't have an origin since He always existed. Scientists as little as 100 years ago believed the universe was eternal. But they now believe the universe had a definite beginning -- much like Genesis believes the universe had a definite beginning.
	Last edited by DOC; 10th August 2008 at 05:54 AM.

10th August 2008, 05:54 AM	#12
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,504	Originally Posted by DOC Well the God of Christianity is "eternal" by definition so the Christian God can't have an origin since He always existed. Scientists as little as 100 years ago believed the universe was eternal. But they now believe the universe had a definite beginning, in the same way Genesis believes the universe had a beginning. Are you saying that Universe was non-existent when it was a singularity?
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

10th August 2008, 05:56 AM	#13
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,730	Doc - I will buy you both Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable and Simon Singh's Big Bang if you promise to read them and review them here. Would you do that? Take the time to learn about the things you so lazily decry?
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'. Last edited by volatile; 10th August 2008 at 05:58 AM.

10th August 2008, 05:59 AM	#14
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,752	Originally Posted by JoeEllison Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism? What are the serious strawman and illogical attacks on modern science and atheism?

10th August 2008, 06:04 AM	#15
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,310	Originally Posted by DOC Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size. You might ask how could "all" of the matter of 10 billion trillion stars which exist in an estimated 100 billion galaxies come from something smaller than an atom. Here is how Hokuele says it is theorized to have happened by inflationary theory which some in this forum say or imply is modern mainline science: Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of the 10 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact? And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God? This isn't even worth the time to type a reply to.
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi

10th August 2008, 06:05 AM	#16
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,504	Originally Posted by DOC What are the serious strawman and illogical attacks on modern science and atheism? It's the implication that you ask. THe premise of this question (unlike your evolution one) is correct. Modern science theory does say that the entire universe was at one time smaller than a pea. Now, you imply much in this question. And that is what people are taking objection with. In a direct analogy, how do you feel about the question: Do most christians know that they practice ritualistic canabalism?
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

10th August 2008, 06:09 AM	#17
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,752	Originally Posted by joobz Are you saying that Universe was non-existent when it was a singularity? How can you say it "was" a singularity, and what is your definition of a singularity.

10th August 2008, 06:14 AM	#18
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by DOC What are the serious strawman and illogical attacks on modern science and atheism? You don't actually know anything about science, or even basic English. For instance, you don't understand that "zero volume" doesn't mean"smaller than a pea", or what a "singularity" is, or how all the evidence and math works. So, your description is a strawman. You don't have the foundation to talk about the subject, you've shown no interest in gaining that background, so all of your comments based on second- and third-hand incomplete layman's descriptions are strawmen by definition. You are ignorant in the literal sense: you just don't know what you are talking about. Then, based on your ignorance, you go after atheists who are "ignorant" only in the sense that you are saying things that they "don't know" because you are saying things that aren't true, and that science doesn't say. Furthermore, your claim that doubts about specific scientific theories somehow mean that your religious viewpoint has any validity is an illogical position... a pathetic joke of a position, truth be told. If it turns out that science is wrong on something, it doesn't make your superstition any less foolish and ignorant, period. One has nothing to do with another.

10th August 2008, 06:14 AM	#19
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,752	Originally Posted by joobz It's the implication that you ask. THe premise of this question (unlike your evolution one) is correct. Modern science theory does say that the entire universe was at one time smaller than a pea. Now, you imply much in this question. And that is what people are taking objection with... What am I implying and what are people objecting to?

10th August 2008, 06:17 AM	#20
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,730	Originally Posted by DOC How can you say it "was" a singularity, and what is your definition of a singularity. If I buy you Singh's excellent, readable book which will explain just that in interesting detail and easy-to-understand prose, will you read it? In other words - do you really want the answers to this question or are you just content to believe what you were told first? Please, I'm serious. I am pretty much broke, but I will gladly spend my own money on two wonderful books that will answer all the silly questions ypu persist on posting here. Will you accept my offer? It is conditional on you reading them and posting reviews of your thoughts on them here.
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

10th August 2008, 06:18 AM	#21
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,752	Originally Posted by JoeEllison You don't actually know anything about science, or even basic English. For instance, you don't understand that "zero volume" doesn't mean"smaller than a pea", or what a "singularity" is, or how all the evidence and math works. It doesn't matter what I know and don't know; this thread is not about DOC. If I said anything wrong in this thread state what I said is wrong. Please list all the things I said in this thread that are wrong.

10th August 2008, 06:29 AM	#22
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	Originally Posted by DOC Well the God of Christianity is "eternal" by definition so the Christian God can't have an origin since He always existed. Did you ever wonder what he did during all those billions of jillions of trillions of zillions of years of eternality before he "created the heaven and the earth" a mere 6000 (spit!) years ago? Just floating in the vast void, no one to talk to, nothing to look at, solitary confinement in a sensory deprivation chamber from which escape was impossible, eon after lonely eon of endless ennui, as the eons themselves smeared together into units of unimaginable cosmological boredom, uninterrupted, neverending... The drone of nothingness drove him mad. Most Christians don't know that, because the backstory of the bible has been suppressed. "In the beginning," they say. Not even close...
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444

10th August 2008, 06:32 AM	#23
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,504	Originally Posted by DOC How can you say it "was" a singularity, and what is your definition of a singularity. a singularity is a point of infinite mass and zero volume. We extrapolate that fact due to 1.) Cosmic background radiation and 2.) the expansion of the universe. So, now, Answer me. Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

10th August 2008, 06:36 AM	#24
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,504	Originally Posted by DOC What am I implying and what are people objecting to? You're implying that if people realized what science said about the universe, that they would find it so improbable as to discount it and turn towards religion. n much the same way, my questions Do most christians know that they practice ritualistic canabalism? The implication is clear, If people knew that thier religion revered a horribly amoral and evil practice (canabalism), they may start questioning other aspects of thier faith.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

10th August 2008, 06:39 AM	#25
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by DOC It doesn't matter what I know and don't know; this thread is not about DOC. If I said anything wrong in this thread state what I said is wrong. Please list all the things I said in this thread that are wrong. It has already been pointed out. We know you're too lazy to learn anything about science, but you could at least read your own threads.

10th August 2008, 06:39 AM	#26
triadboy Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Tucson, Arizona Posts: 2,556	DOC - you may have a misunderstanding embedded in your brain. When the singularity expanded it didn't throw out a bunch of planets and stars - it expanded into a hot 'soup'. Over billion of years, gravitational forces and thermonuclear activities made the stars - then the stars made the matter you now see.

10th August 2008, 06:39 AM	#27
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,890	Originally Posted by JoeEllison Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism? DOC? Why are you so eager to display and reinforce your own ignorance, instead of actually learning things? I don't know much about DOC, but I do know that whatever you're accusing him of wasn't done in this thread. So either it's false, or it applies to something else somewhere else and should be left there, not dragged over here. And it's ad-hominem, having nothing to do with the point. However, DOC, I don't know what the point is. What makes you wonder whether most atheists know this, or suspect that they wouldn't? And what effects would you expect that it might have on their religion/philosophy, and why would you expect any at all? I don't get where this question came from or where it's going. It's like seeing someone ask whether most left-handed people know that most lumber comes from pine trees and whether that knowledge would affect their typing speed. That lack of context or explanation (plus perhaps your previous posting history) might be why people seem to think that you mean this stuff to somehow imply that familiarity with the Big Bang would make atheists not be atheists anymore.

10th August 2008, 06:41 AM	#28
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,827	I knew it. DOC, just because you can't comprehend the idea that the universe began with the big bang does not mean other people cannot comprehend it. Let me describe the problem another way. Let's say that I found it inconceivable that Christians would worship God if they knew that He instructed people to execute rape victims. If I ran over to a Christian board and said "How many Christians know that the Bible instructs its followers to kill rape victims" would my message really convert anyone? Would you change your beliefs if I asked that question? Would the people you know change their beliefs? . . . . . . . citation - Deuteronomy 22:23-24
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

10th August 2008, 06:44 AM	#29
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,730	Originally Posted by Delvo I don't get where this question came from or where it's going. Welcome to the forum. You've not been here long, have you?
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

10th August 2008, 06:52 AM	#30
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by Delvo I don't know much about DOC, but I do know that whatever you're accusing him of wasn't done in this thread. So either it's false, or it applies to something else somewhere else and should be left there, not dragged over here. And it's ad-hominem, having nothing to do with the point. You don't understand what ad hominem means, then. When someone frequently lies and demonstrates ignorance on various subjects, pointing out their dishonesty and ignorance isn't an illogical thing to do. An ad hominem would be to claim that he must be wrong because he smells bad or because he kicks puppies. Not that I'm saying anything of the sort, just giving examples. Also, you'll learn over time that sometimes it is best to just cut to the chase with some people. DOC isn't asking a question, he's making an attack and sticking a question mark on the end of it.That's his pattern, that's what he does.

10th August 2008, 06:57 AM	#31
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,371	Do most theists know that there is nothing in the Big Bang theory that requires divine intervention? If DOC is any indication, then the answer is "no".

10th August 2008, 07:15 AM	#32
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,752	Originally Posted by Mashuna I've done thorough research on this question, ever since I saw it posed in the 'Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins' thread. I have polled over 4,000 self-described atheists, and here is the breakdown of the results. 81.7% Already knew this 17.4% Didn't know this, and when it was explained to them said 'Really? Huh, that's kind of cool. I didn't know that.' Interestingly, every single one of them used those exact words. I don't know why, but it's outside the scope of this particular poll. Maybe further research could be interesting. 1.8% Filled the poll in twice. As described above, my extensive research indicates no. How did you contact 4000 atheists? And what was the exact question you asked them? And what were the "exact words that every single one of them used?

10th August 2008, 07:20 AM	#33
Fitter Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Where the pavement ends Posts: 3,505	Originally Posted by DOC How did you contact 4000 atheists? And what was the exact question you asked them? And what were the "exact words that every single one of them used? Why do you want to know this? Does it contradict your own "solid research" in the "Most atheists do not know..." thread?

10th August 2008, 07:21 AM	#34
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,752	Originally Posted by joobz a singularity is a point of infinite mass and zero volume. What is your source for this definition.

10th August 2008, 07:23 AM	#35
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,752	Originally Posted by Fitter Why do you want to know this? Does it contradict your own "solid research" in the "Most atheists do not know..." thread? Just curious how 4000 atheists were contacted to do a poll.

10th August 2008, 07:27 AM	#36
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,504	Originally Posted by DOC What is your source for this definition. http://www.123exp-astronomy.com/t/01564079733/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity Stephen Hawkins, "A Brief History of Time." among many many others. I have now answered your question directly and honestly. So, now, Answer me. Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser