It's not a myth to have faith in. It's simply the most likely answer based on what we've observed about the universe. Should new and provable information come to light that would change the whole theory, that would be what I would accept as the most likely possibility.

It always annoys me when people consider science something to believe or have faith in.

not me. I believe in an invisible sky pixie with magical powers that can hear my thoughts and loves me. makes more sense

We don't know if the Big Bang happened or not. All we really know is that it's at least possible since it doesn't violate any of the physical laws that govern the universe. It's certainly possible that something else accounts for the creation of the universe but how can we know what that might've been since reality as we understand it didn't exist in the millisecond prior to the creation of the universe. Still, if someone speculates on a theory that respects physics, it can at least be heard and discussed as a possibility.

What we do know is that it wasn't pulled from the ass of some eternal being in the sky using his limitless magical powers.

I have to smile when someone on a chat site such as this tells the greatest scientific minds in the world that they are talking rubbish.
A recent BBC series entitled "Universe" fronted by professor Brian Cox went into great detail on the most up to date scientific theories on the origin of the universe.
Maybe you should watch it.

Atheism is a lack of faith.

Therefore we don't put our faith in the Big Bang.

We accept that the evidence points to it, and until compelling evidence comes along that indicates otherwise it will do.

Do I know what happened and got the universe started? NO. I have no clue and know nothing of a Big Bang. I do know that it certainly was not creation like in Genesis.

It's unlikely that anyone will ever prove precisely how/if the universe began. The Big Bang is simply the best theory that anyone has come up with so far to explain how it might have happened. A multitude of scientists have worked on this theory, refined it, and added to it and I'm fairly certain that they all far more knowledgeable on astrophysics than you or me.

I am reasonably certain that a magic space wizard did not create the universe.

So, could the universe have began some other way? Maybe but the Big Bang Theory is probably at least in the ballpark of being correct.

Though maybe the universe simply has always existed, circling forever in an infinite loop of space and time.

Maybe its something else entirely that is so beyond our current level of scientific understanding that we could not possibly comprehend it.

But, for all that it matters, we might as well just go with the Big Bang Theory since nobody else has a more plausible theory.

I don't know exactly what happened but I know exactly what didn't happen. The creationism nonsense like what's in the Book of Genesis.

There is no way to prove if the Big Bang Theory postulated by modern physics is true and there is no way to prove that it is untrue. Hitherto, there is no incontrovertible conclusive proof as to the origin of the universe. However, from a rational perspective some model is certainly better than no model. Doubltess, with the passage of time the model will be tweaked.

My creation myth is "I don't know." It leaves me with time to do something else.

Atheism should really have no connection with physics, whatever the theories. Since atheism is concerned with the issue of whether there is a supernatural or not, which is faith based, and science is only concerned with the natural. If all the scientific theories about everything were proved to be wrong, ( And certainly I am informed by people who have more knowledge of it than me, that the big bang is a lot more doubtful than many. ) that would not prove god, only that a new scientific theory was needed. While if apologists found a conclusive proof of the existence of a creator god, that would not disprove any scientific theories, but would only ask what method the god used for creation.

Science may disprove, ( To a reasonable level, if you do not embrace extremes such as total solipsism. ) the truth of certain ideas about the nature of god, such as the idea that god is accurately described in certain books like the bible. But that can also be disproved by history, philosophy, mathematics, textural study, logic and a dozen other disciplines anyway.

All righty then, Lol.
"Big bang scientific creation myth". Similar to the "scientific gravity myth", the "scientific speed of light myth", the "scientific quantum theory myth", etc., Okay, honestly that last one may actually be a myth.

I'm extremely curious, what's your favored creation myth, the universe on the back of a giant turtle?

Not a myth, a science based theory. Science theories can change, grow,, develop, and even be dropped, because it is fucking science. Calling it a myth sounds like denying something in the Universe happened. It sounds like something a secret creationist would want to spread.

Whether myth or fact matters little in either urgency to know or everyday life; just like gods and such. I actually get a 'big bang' out of reading the nonsensical arguing over it.

The BBT is the best scientific model we have currently. We don't know what it was like before the BBT, evrything breaks down at planke time.

I believe that the universe is infinite in time, with the big bang being the beginning of the current expansion cycle. which will be followed by a contraction cycle marked by a huge black hole becomes so gorged with matter and energy that it explodes, creating a new big bang. .

Please go elsewhere with your stupid bullshit.

Also, learn the difference between a hypothesis and a myth.

Know any Christian ladies? I could do with a Big Bang myself!

I call it a SCIENTIFIC theory. Thus, I mostly find ot plausible. If science finds too many holes, then we adjust.
It could be a myth, created by our maker, a middle school kid who put us together as a science fair project. We came in third and are now sitting on a self in her closet. We are all just Sims.

If anyone has studied the New Testament, they might find a correlation.

Use to be interesting...now its like, what difference does it make in my life???

Expanding Universe?

. . . if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made . . . expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results. — E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936

………..

“If the red shifts are a Doppler shift . . . the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young.
“On the other hand, if red shifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time.“
— E. Hubble, 1937 Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices.

The two relativity myths, Special and General. He didn’t even try to write testable hypotheses, let alone test any.

Please enlighten me with your Big Bang knowledge.