| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Enkidu" |
| Date: |
22 May 2004 02:50:12 PM |
| Object: |
Cosmology |
Scientific American: The Myth of the Beginning of Time
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist
before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade
ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to
contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to
a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical
physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their
perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of
cosmology.
[Read more]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J20113F58
--
Enkidu - AA# 2165
"Today is a fine day for reality . . ."
.
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology |
22 May 2004 03:19:41 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b194ecf606c78b4989778@news.west.cox.net...
Scientific American: The Myth of the Beginning of Time
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist
before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade
ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to
contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to
a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical
physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their
perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of
cosmology.
[Read more]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J20113F58
Blasphemous? As in "grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred"?
Who's writing such crap for the Scientific American these days, leftovers
from Bob Guccione's fallen empire?
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology |
23 May 2004 05:49:13 AM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J20113F58
Blasphemous? As in "grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred"?
Who's writing such crap for the Scientific American these days, leftovers
from Bob Guccione's fallen empire?
It's a figure of speech. Should we cleanse our vocabulary of words
with religious connotations or roots?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology |
23 May 2004 08:25:19 PM |
|
|
"nobody" <nobody@here.com> wrote in message
news:0a01b05planv21e73cb8gkint9dvro7ccm@4ax.com...
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J20113F58
Blasphemous? As in "grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred"?
Who's writing such crap for the Scientific American these days, leftovers
from Bob Guccione's fallen empire?
It's a figure of speech.
It's bad writing.
Should we cleanse our vocabulary of words
with religious connotations or roots?
Whatever. Writers should write well or be subject to criticism. Writers have
time to choose proper words. In this context, "blasphemous" is at best
false, and at worst loaded with connotations of an authoritarian hierachy
far more relevant to a description of religion than of science, and also
false.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology |
23 May 2004 12:53:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 May 2004 10:49:13 +0000, nobody wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J20113F58
Blasphemous? As in "grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred"?
Who's writing such crap for the Scientific American these days, leftovers
from Bob Guccione's fallen empire?
It's a figure of speech. Should we cleanse our vocabulary of words with
religious connotations or roots?
Heretical, maybe. But not blasphemous.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology |
23 May 2004 09:31:33 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 May 2004 10:49:13 GMT, nobody <nobody@here.com> wrote:
It's a figure of speech. Should we cleanse our vocabulary of words
with religious connotations or roots?
It would certainly help.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology |
23 May 2004 02:23:28 AM |
|
|
In article <c8ochh$qir@library1.airnews.net>,
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
"Enkidu" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b194ecf606c78b4989778@news.west.cox.net...
Scientific American: The Myth of the Beginning of Time
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist
before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade
ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to
contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to
a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical
physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their
perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of
cosmology.
[Read more]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J20113F58
Blasphemous? As in "grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred"?
Who's writing such crap for the Scientific American these days, leftovers
from Bob Guccione's fallen empire?
I caught that too. I wish that popular science writers, or even
sometimes scientists themselves would choose their words a little more
carefully when addressing the general public.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology |
22 May 2004 08:24:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:50:12 -0700, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Scientific American: The Myth of the Beginning of Time
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist
before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade
ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to
contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to
a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical
physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their
perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of
cosmology.
[Read more]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J20113F58
If this doesn't hand the christians ammo, I don't know what will.
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "soft" atheist.
Email will not be read.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology |
22 May 2004 08:29:06 PM |
|
|
In article <a34c92931028602d53bafb5c45ed716f@news.1usenet.com>,
Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm says...
On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:50:12 -0700, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Scientific American: The Myth of the Beginning of Time
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist
before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade
ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to
contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to
a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical
physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their
perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of
cosmology.
[Read more]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J20113F58
If this doesn't hand the christians ammo, I don't know what will.
I didn't get that at all. A perfectly rational explanation of the
universe. It might answer the question "Who caused the Big Bang?" with
"Nobody. The universe is, was, and will be."
Theists find ammo anywhere they look. Of course, they are looking with
their eyes closed, so I guess it doesn't really matter where they look
anyway.
--
Enkidu - AA# 2165
"Today is a fine day for reality . . ."
.
|
|
|
| User: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology |
24 May 2004 09:16:13 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:29:06 -0700, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
In article <a34c92931028602d53bafb5c45ed716f@news.1usenet.com>,
Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm says...
On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:50:12 -0700, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Scientific American: The Myth of the Beginning of Time
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist
before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade
ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to
contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to
a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical
physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their
perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of
cosmology.
[Read more]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J20113F58
If this doesn't hand the christians ammo, I don't know what will.
I didn't get that at all. A perfectly rational explanation of the
universe. It might answer the question "Who caused the Big Bang?" with
"Nobody. The universe is, was, and will be."
Theists find ammo anywhere they look. Of course, they are looking with
their eyes closed, so I guess it doesn't really matter where they look
anyway.
Hey, I didn't say it would give them good, rational ammo, just ammo.
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "soft" atheist.
Email will not be read.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
