Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "POLL: 63% Of Americans 'Absolutely Certain' God Exists" video.

  1. Religion is about faith. You really can't be certain about it, but with faith you can believe it is. Kyle is wrong on his stance in saying it isn't true that there is a god or a higher being. Just like someone can't say there is a god or a higher being with 100% certainty. Kyle has a weak ass argument and is not being tolerate here of other people's faith.
    12
  2. ***** This is one of the reasons why I say atheism has become a religion.  You have people like Kyle and Richard Dawkins who become this emotional about this issue.
    3
  3. Ion, belief is about faith. People have their reasons why they believe in a higher being. I am earning my PhD in physical chemistry an I know I am far more intelligent than Kyle. I don't believe in a higher being but there are times I have questioned. For example, when I was suicidal years ago I get a random phone call from a friend I haven't talked to in years. That conversation stopped me from doing it. We didn't even talk about suicide, we just caught up on each other lives. Another is when I was going through a rough time in my life a series of events occurred with certain people were involved that was too odd to explain. It made me think that possibly there is a higher being. Some people have experiences that make them believe. Why should I judge? I see where they are getting at.
    2
  4. ComeOnIsSuchAJoy, Religion and science are two completely different things where one does not trump the other. There are several things in life that science has never, as with great probability, will never explain. That is why people have faith. I personally don't but I see why others do and for legit reasons. Anyone who starts comparing science and religion have either 1. shown they know very little about both 2. probably do but fell into a moment of ignorance
    1
  5. Cegesh, you can't "disprove" god no more than you can "prove" him.
    1
  6. I see my comment let to a decent discussion. I also see that this discussion led to the usual, ignorant science vs religion debate. Science and religion are both completely different where both can co-exist and one does not trump the other. As Richard Feynman said, religion is a culture a faith, science is a culture of doubt. There are several things science has never, and with great probability, will never explain. Strange occurrences. And I don't mean natural occurrences, just a series of events that can never really be explain. For example, on a personal story. When I was suicidal years ago why did a friend I haven't talked to in years call me up randomly just to chat? That stopped me from proceeding with my actions. Situations like that happen to several people. You also have other questions such as why are we here? What is the meaning of life? What happens? And so on. Science is there to develop theories which are models to explain natural occurrences and give future predictions. That's it. It does not nor tries not to go beyond that. Anyone who tries to compare science and religion either 1. shows they lack knowledge in both 2. fell into a moment of ignorance For the record, I am pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry so I do understand science.
    1
  7. "you don't need to be tolerant of crazy. Especially when that crazy isn't tolerant of your nonbelief." Define crazy. Just because someone has faith doesn't make them crazy. There have been plenty of crazy atheists. And on both sides I don't like it when they don't tolerate other beliefs. In this case Kyle is doing that. I do find Kyle to be crazy at times. "If you want to teach children and influence laws and shape a community" This is why we have a constitution. It is supposed to be a standard to prevent religious laws from being made. We follow it, most of the time. A lot of times we don't in several ways, but that is another discussion in itself.
    1
  8. "Dawkins/Hitchens tolerance makes the most sense." Dawkins has become a troll and has become the exact same person he has criticized for years. His early work was fine but he has not produced anything for around 30 years. He has a brilliant mind but instead decided to be the figure head for atheism. As a whole, he lack critical thinking skills. Hitchens is intelligent in his own right, but when it comes to religion he is ignorant as well. I read his book god is no Great. I felt it was very poorly written and shows his lack of understanding of religion and science.
    1
  9. "To belive in things you can't prove is crazy." Which means you feel all of science is crazy since science does not prove anything. "Well you see how good this works. Especial with Trump's pick for the new head for de Department for Education." The federal department of education is unconstitutional to begin with. Even at that K-12 education is mainly ran and funded at the state and local level, so that is no big deal.
    1
  10. " This is the stupidest thing I've read in a very long time. Everything science does is test and prove everything. It's not science if you have no prove. Well it' would be just a thesis." To prove something means without a doubt. As Richard Feynman says, religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt. What science does is develop theories which are models that gives explanations of natural occurrences and predict future results. That's it. It does not "prove" anything and several models have been shown to be poor over time. If we said science "proved" something then we would have never developed the theory of special relativity and still be saying E&M waves travel through the ether (even with that we still don't fully "know" what electric fields are). If we said science "proves" something than quantum mechanics would not have came about. Scientists spend hours in a lab during the day to develop better models. But you don't "prove" anything in science. " The department of education should be against the constitution? " It is against the constitution. No where does it say that the federal government should be running education. Even at that states still set the standards. Several states are not following CCSS or NGSS.
    1
  11. " Well, science has never exploited human weaknesses," I beg to differ. Look what democrats are trying to do with climate change. They are misrepresenting what scientists are saying to try to gain more power. "and it's proven to be the most reliable means of actually figuring out how the universe works" I can agree with that. But science does not dabble into philosophical questions such as why are we here? What is the meaning of life? There are times certain events happen that can't be explain. Why did someone do what they do during that time? Science is there to develop models to explain natural occurrences and give future predictions. No one is trying to do that with religion anymore besides extremist who misrepresent religion. " than filling in the blanks with a bunch of fantastic stories grounded in mythology. " And that is what they are, they are stories. People involved in religion understand that. There are idiots in religion, but you can't let them ruin religion like I don't let someone like Bernie Sanders ruin science. "Disprove one thing science regularly teaches." You can't disprove anything in science either. Science is driven off of doubt which is why we still do research. Your response we more intelligent than the other person's so I will say this. I do research with spectroscopy and vibrational modes. If two modes "communicate" in some way they couple. If they couple through space you can determine the distance and angle between them and use that to determine the structure of a molecule. One model to do that is called Transition Dipole Coupling (TDC). It works very well for the Amide I modes that couple which is found in the backbone of a peptide. I did some work, and others have has well that showed that TDC falls apart in certain situations, mainly close distances. That does not make sense at times because the Amide I transitions can be a few Angstroms apart but TDC still works. But at times it doesn't for other modes. So what gives? What I am working it is developing another model. Now is that one going to be the best? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. TDC works very well, but clearly falls apart in other cases. So it has flaws. That is one of many examples I can come up with. But in the end science does not "prove" anything.
    1
  12. " You don't even understand how science works? " Considering how I am getting my PhD in physical chemistry it is safe to say I do understand how science works. You can't "prove" anything in science, period. If you can than scientists will be unemployed because everything has been proven. Why continue to work? It has all be proven. I guess I should stay home today and not bother working in the lab. Everything has been proven. Read my most recent comment that deals with TDC and how that model works at times but not others. "Ehm you realise only because somthing is not mentioned in the constitution it's not against it. Pretty murch everthing would be against the constitution with this understanding." The constitution clearly lists the role of the federal government. Education is not one of them thus, via the 10th amendment, education goes to the states. As I said, several states do not even use CCSS or NGSS.
    1
  13. " Yes, science changes with each discovery of new information. Unlike religion, it's not set in stone. " And religion is not there to make new discoveries. It is faith based. People don't use it to understand the universe anymore, that is archaic. There have been times in my life where certain events happen that science will never try to explain. Such as why was one particular person in town on a certain day? I say that because recently a series of events happened to me that are far to weird that does make me wonder. It is something science will never try to explain. No one is using religion to explain how the planets revolve around the sun or how the atom is modeled. But yet people feel like they are.
    1
  14. "The overwhelming majority of scientists consider climate change to be legitimate" Democrats are not presenting it that way. The issues regarding climate change are 1. how much is man playing a role 2. is it even bad Democrats are saying it is a major issue and we need to tax and regulate in order to stop something that has been happening for over 4 billion years. We should keep doing research in it and keep progressing in technology. But we can't make radical decisions on something that is very vague.
    1
  15. "First of you can't be serious. You just can't. They don't missinterpred anything. You're also disproving yourself. Democrats are corporate whores and not scientists. Science has no agenda." Scientists are still human and can possess an agenda. But, with climate change read what I wrote to ComeOneIsSuchAJoy. "With this you discredit yourself. You're not a scientist. You are a liar. When did Bernie Sanders ever do something against science you smearing hack?" What he has been saying about climate change. Scientists are not saying the same thing he is.
    1
  16. "How much do you care whether the things you believe are actually true?" That is up to the individual person and their faith. Not my business. "And, then, if you claim they are, how do you go about demonstrating to those who don't believe you that they are?" Again, up to the individual person. Just don't be an ass about it like Kyle is trying. He hasn't convince me of anything except atheism is a religion.
    1
  17. Cegesh How is it insane? The fact you can't explain shows you just rather call me names and run away.  Democrats in office are not scientists, they are politicians who are power hungry.  Consider that. "There is not even a question we humans are polluting the planet and are the main course for climate change." Then what caused climate change before man was on earth?  You do know a driving force of evolution is climate change.  Or are you one of those who don't accept the theory of evolution? "Scientists are saying the same thing Bernie Sanders is." No they aren't. Also, Bernie never gives a list of scientists.  He just shouts talking points. "97% of every scientific studies comes to the same conclusion," Not true at all.  Not every study was looked at and several that were ended up being misrepresented as brought forth by the authors of those studies.
    1
  18. ComeOnIsSuchAJoy "But, again, how do you take someone seriously who essentially denies a certain aspect of reality?" What are they denying?
    1
  19. Cegesh What am I denying?
    1
  20. Cegesh There is no "consensus".  One survey people point to only had less than 1% of scientists actually responding to the vague questions.  97% of 1% is less than 1%.  So if you think less than 1% is a consensus than you are easily fooled. Bernie is a career politician that that got in his position by promising to spend other people's money.  Anyone can do that.  By the way, he is a socialist who owns three homes. Who cares what other countries do?  How many countries put a man on the moon?
    1
  21. Cegesh http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#66f02d357187
    1
  22. Cegesh And that is why I am getting my PhD in physical chemistry and you buy into the idea that democrats actually care about you.
    1
  23. Cegesh Do you even know what a fact is in science?  Facts are hard data.  What separates scientists from non-scientists like you are how they are interpret.  Scientists are not making the same conclusion that democrats are making on climate change. That is what those two articles I gave you laid out. 
    1
  24. Cegesh Why do you think I am a republican?  And why do you think I am a creationist?  Where have I ever suggested that?
    1
  25. Cegesh I never said humans weren't influencing the world.  I am questioning how much are we.
    1
  26. On a personal note I am earning my PhD in physical chemistry and I don't believe in god or a higher being. I can see why people do, and certain times in my life has made me question. One incident is when I was suicidal years ago and was going to go with it. I received a random phone call from a friend I haven't talked to in years. We just chatted and mentioned nothing about suicide. Talking to him, though got my mind off if it and I reconsidered a lot in my life and haven't been that way since. Another is when I was going through a rough time in my life and out of as series of odd events I got through it. The events are odd and the details would be too long and personal to list, but with how it all laid out it did make me think something was up. Stuff like that happens to a lot of people you can't explain. I can see why someone will believe. I have no problem with it and others shouldn't as well.
    1
  27. Kyle is an example of why people call atheism a religion. They pray to their god in Richard Dawkins and become triggered when someone disagrees with them.
    1
  28. MosesBad, you just fell into the usual ignorant science vs religion argument. Science is there to develop theories which are models to explain natural occurrences and predict future results. I does not, nor tries not go beyond that. Both science and religion and co-exist and one does not trump the other.
    1
  29. What we have found out this past election is that these polls are not really accurate. Even at that, who cares?
    1