Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Obama Signs Law Giving Protection To Atheists" video.

  1. Uh, being atheist and scientific do not go hand and hand. Several of my colleagues are religions and have advanced degrees in the sciences.
    4
  2. They did, it is called the 1st amendment.
    3
  3. Skeptic Not really.  Anyway, religion and science are two completely different things.  Anyone who tries to compare them are ignorant of both. .
    3
  4. Wade Haden No amendment protects anyone because the law is not supposed to protect certain groups.  The 1st amendment allowed atheists to practice their belief without persecution by the government.  They were treated the same like anyone else.  This law violates the 14th amendment as no law is supposed to favor any group.  Also, this does open up a whole new can of worms. Atheism is a belief, or lack their off.  You what to know what else is lack of a belief?  Climate change deniers.  They do not believe in climate change.  So do we protect them? What about people who do not believe in gay marriage?   Or people who do not believe the lunar landing happened or that 9/11 was an inside job?  How far are you going to go?  Fact is that the government is not supposed to pick favorites.  Atheists had the exact same rights as everyone else.  Where did you go to college?  Burlington College after it closed down?
    2
  5. Opus 0 No it doesn't. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.  It doesn't matter what you belief, race or sex is.  Let me ask you, would you support a law that protected climate change deniers from discrimination?  They have a lack of belief.  How is that any different than atheism?  Or how about people who are 9/11 truthers?  Should they be protected?  You can't give special rights to groups of people.  That is not equal.
    2
  6. This was not needed at all. Also, this violates the constitution.
    2
  7. Skeptic Made up stat.  Now a majority of them may be atheist, but even at that religion and science are two completely different practices. They are separate all together and one does not trump the other.  So the issue is irrelevant.  Also, to be blunt, biology is not much of a "science". 
    2
  8. Opus 0 Doesn't matter.  This law won't change how people vote.  Or are you going to arrest people for voting against someone just because of their religion?
    1
  9. How about someone passes a law that stops liberals from discriminating against rich people, there by abolishing the progressive tax code.. See how dumb this new law is?
    1
  10. SatanistSin You do not need to reinforce an amendment.  Also, atheism is a religion. But laws like this open up a whole new can of worms.  How would you feel if this law was passed to protect the KKK?
    1
  11. William Bostedt Atheists act like a religion though.  Not saying all, but several do and they are led by Richard Dawkins.  You can be a theist and not be religious just like you can be an atheist and be a religion.  Now that they have special protection they might as well be considered one. People in the Middle East lack several rights, they are a poor comparison. "Also, if you would compare people who don't believe in your sky fairy to people who go out of their way to do harm to people, then... Well, you're a worthless debate partner, to say the least." There have been several atheists that have done harm to others.  Joseph Stalin was one for example. 
    1
  12. William Bostedt 1. You clearly are not understanding what I said. You can be a theist and not be religious.  There are atheists who act like religious people do. I view them as no different.  If you just mind your own business I really do not care.  Also, no group should ever be given special protection.  Switch out the word "atheists" and replace it with "KKK", do you support it now? 
    1
  13. SatanistSin Fine, now tell me what rights atheists lack and everyone else has. 
    1
  14. William Bostedt It is not a false equivalency.   Richard Dawkins is seen as the guy to popularize atheism but has become a major troll while doing so.  People have no problem with atheists, they just want them to keep it to themselves.  Those that do have a problem with atheists are religious individuals who also need to keep it to themselves. 
    1
  15. SatanistSin Again, name me one right that atheists lack and other people have. I have seen the video and that issue is not answered.  
    1
  16. Skeptic One of the smartest physicists I know and is a friend with is religious. 
    1
  17. Skeptic Ok that is 72%, not 96% as you said.  Anyway, it is still irrelevant as religion and science are both completely different and one does not trump the other.
    1
  18. Skeptic In all, what I am saying is that the issue is irrelevant.  I am a scientist myself and really do not care.  I just hate people who try to compare science and religion as if they are competing in some way.
    1
  19. Skeptic Several people like Richard Dawkins (who has contribute nothing to science in over 30 years) and Christopher Hitchens. 
    1
  20. Matthew Sawyer Fair enough.  But in the end it goes back to the original comment of how just because we do not have religion does not mean science would be any farther it would be now. 
    1
  21. Skeptic I didn't strawman anyone.  I am just making a comment on how if we did not have religion does not mean science would be anymore advanced than we are now. 
    1
  22. Skeptic Research is limited because people do not want to put in the work to do it.  That has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that people just do not want to work in the STEM fields. 
    1
  23. Skeptic As a scientist myself I see it first hand.  We lack people doing research.
    1
  24. Skeptic No there aren't.  Maybe in some areas, but not a federal law.  I was looking at such jobs recently.  It has everything to do with people not wanting to do the work.  We lack skilled workers in the STEM fields to do research. 
    1
  25. Skeptic I am a scientist.  Right now I am look at vibrational states of Amide I modes in a peptide backbone and how they couple with each other. Sorry if you cannot understand the words I just wrote.
    1
  26. World Citizen No one "disbelieve" climate change or over population due to religion.  Maybe evolution, but evolution, like all of science, is something you don't believe in, you support.  Richard Feynman say religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt.  What science does is develop models that explain natural occurrences, those models are theories.  The model with the strongest supporting evidence is what is used.  People use religion to develop a sense of purpose in life such as why are we here?  Is there an after life?  And so on.  I personally don't need it, but someone people do.  I need booze, some people need sex, some need video games, some need religion.  Whatever people need to get through life so be it.  But religion and science are two completely different things and serve different purposes. 
    1
  27. World Citizen There are two words that you should never use in science.  They are "prove" and "belief".  If you were to ask me if I believed in evolution I would say no.  Now at that point you may call  me ignorant.  In reality I support evolution and a great model to explain how species change over time due to several events.  I use it all the time in discussions.  I just don't believe it because in science you don't believe things, you support them.  The reason why is because science has the ability to change when new evidence is discovered.  It is not faith based like religion.  Religion is based on faith.  People use it to develop a purpose in life.  Whether or not there is an afterlife is something science will never answer as science can never, with 100% certainty, answer anything.  People have faith there is.  There in lies the difference between the two.
    1
  28. Tree dragon Not really. War will still exist along with stupidity.   
    1
  29. yussuq madiq Theories are established with supporting evidence, they are not "guesses".  The base of all science is physics and is where the major growth comes from.  The growth for biology is limited due to most biologist lacking understanding of physics, especially electromagnetic forces.   "And you seems to be not good in math. The article stated that 7% of scientists are religious. " The argument was how many were atheists.  In the end it does not matter. "Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible" Because they are completely different, just like a sledge hammer and an ice cream cone are different.  They are not related in any way. 
    1
  30. yussuq madiq I am not a theist so there's that. Put it this way.  If you put a physicist in an advanced biology class they will figure it out.  If you put a biologist in an advanced physics class they will fail.  In science you have physics and stamp collecting . Biologists are stamp collectors.   " A physicist might be interested in the forces within the atom, while a chemist is interested in how the atom reacts to different atoms." The reaction occurs because of forces. "Remember that you said it was only 78 and not 93?" Nope. I was referring to atheists.  That 93% includes agnostics as well.  In the end it doesn't matter.  Look up the book Spurious Correlations.  You see some interesting correlations.
    1
  31. yussuq madiq 1. I don't believe in anything if you really want to know. 2. That is not an opinion, it is simply a fact.  You can maybe find a few exceptions, but there is a reason why every biologist has to take two classes of physics but not every physics major has to take biology.  You understand how the basics work you can figure it out. Understanding first aid is a poor example.  That is about training.  But most physicists could take the proper courses to learn how to do first aid. Can a biologist do well in an E&M course taught through the textbook written by Jackson? Doubt it.  3. There are four fundamental forces in the universe.  When it comes to chemical reactions the only one is electromagnetic forces.  If you take an organic chemistry course you can do well if you understand that.  That is how I got an A in O-Chem where everyone else, especially the biologists struggle. I thought of the reactions through electrostatics. 4. Scientists, by simply through their career, doubt everything.  Richard Feynman said religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt. So of course most scientists will doubt the existence of god.  They should doubt everything.  That is how science progresses.  In the end it doesn't matter because science is not there to develop evidence for or against a god.  Science is there to develop models to explain natural occurrences and develop predictions. 
    1
  32. Skeptic I am not ignoring statistics, I am saying it doesn't matter.  There is nothing that shows that science would prosper if religion was gone. 
    1
  33. Skeptic Maybe that is more of a debate on how much of a role should government have on science and scientific research? Also, how many regulations we should have?  You don't like research labs being shut down due to regulation you don't like just like other people don't like businesses being shut down due to other regulations. How about this, why should a cake shop be shut down because they refuse to have their cake in a gay wedding?  I feel what you are arguing is something different now and that is the role of government on business and regulations.
    1
  34. yussuq madiq 1. I agree with you for the most part. 2. I will agree with you on the application.  Several physicists are theorists for a reason.  The issue is that physicists are problem solvers where biologists typically aren't.  Another issue, though with physicists is that they are typically anti-social and can't explain what they know well.  It is a frustrating barrier at times.  In all, both sides have pros and cons.  I talk to biochemist in my fields who have no clue how a LASER or the theory behind their research even works.  I talk to physicists who do, but can't explain it to the common man.  I can understand what they say, others can't.  It becomes an issue of one side does not know much and the other side does but cant' present it. If you really want to impress study and become an expert in biophysics.  Study physics and biology.  I studied physics and chemistry so I do a decent job at explaining physical concepts.  But with biology and physics you can excel.  They are rare breeds but are valuable. 3. Ok 4. Science does not prove anything.  People use religion to find a purpose in life such as why are we here or is there an afterlife?  Science will never do that.  Science explains natural occurrences and predict future results. 
    1
  35. I am not christian but I feel this law is unnecessary and unconstitutional.
    1
  36. Stephen Marco It violates the 14th amendment. The government is not supposed to give special privileges or rights to any group.  Fact is that atheists had the exact same rights as everyone else.
    1
  37. TheBlackPhoenix100 Those laws were ruled unconstitutional years ago because they violate the 1st amendment.  So again, name me one right atheists lack that everyone else had.
    1
  38. TheBlackPhoenix100 Again, the SC ruled them unconstitutional and none of them are enforced.
    1
  39. TheBlackPhoenix100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins
    1
  40. ***** Yes it is. It doesn't matter if they are persecuted or not as long as the government is not doing it.  What the government can do is try to promote tolerance or critical thinking in some way, but they can't force people to treat a group in a special way.  They are picking favorites.  While you may believe in this, how would you feel if a bunch of racists were in office and gave special protection to the KKK?
    1
  41. TheBlackPhoenix100 Again, none of those laws can be enforced, period.  The SC ruled against them.  They still exist on the books but they are not enforced.  Just like in 2000 Alabama became the last state to legally allow interracial marriage by their laws.  In reality they still were not allowed to ban interracial marriage because of the SC decision in 1967.  So none of those states enforce those laws.
    1
  42. Great, now tell that to Richard Dawkins.
    1
  43. The government is not supposed to pick favorites. No law is supposed to favor any particular group. It doesn't matter is you are atheist, agnostic or theist. The law is supposed to cover everyone equally. In all, this law is a combination of pointless and unconstitutional.
    1
  44. It is a pointless law. Name me one right that atheists lack and everyone had.
    1
  45. If you keep your beliefs to yourself then no one will care.
    1
  46. Red Hunteur Ok, fine. Personally I find anyone who flaunts their belief that much to be annoying.
    1