Originally Posted by digger2929

If were worried about having a negative influence on kids or people that come to campus I think KGB would be far down on the priority list.

Funnily enough, I was being sarcastic in a sarcastic manner - so I was being somewhat serious with that statement

If you guys are really curious about a lot of these topics/debatable points I highly recommend watching some youtube videos by Ravi Zacharias. He is an apologetic that travels to universities all around the world often debating atheists. He leaves to standing ovations. Was just watching some and already feel pumped up to meet some of you guys when I go sharing on campus =)

An old trader wanted to show his son something about life. So he decided to take him on a trade route with him. They packed their goods and supplies onto their camel and set off the next day.

They travelled for a long time and the son grew tired because it was his first time travelling. The father told him to sit on the camel the rest of the way to the next town. When they arrived, people started scolding the son saying "why are you, a healthy young man, riding a camel while forcing your father to walk the enitre way". The father told the boy to remain silent and they went about their business.

They then left the town and headed towards the next town on the route. Before reaching the town the father said "now let me ride the camel so that we do not get the same reception." The son agreed and they entered the town in this manner. This time the father was scolded by people saying "how can you call yourself a father when you force your son to walk in this terrible heat". The father stayed silent and they finished their business and soon left the town heading towards the next one.

This time, before they entered the town, the father said "we should both ride the camel so that the villagers will have no complaints." the son agreed and they proceeded into the town in this manner. This time they were once again met people scolding them by saying "what kind of horrible people are you to force your camel to support all those goods along with both your weights for such long periods of time". Once again, the father stayed silent and conducted his business and they left soon after.

On approaching the final town on their route, the son asked "what should we do now? we are both tired and if we ride the camel they will scold us" The father then replied "we will walk along side the camel instead of riding it this time. it is only a little further" And they entered the town in this manner. However, this time they were met with laughter and taunts. People would say " look at these fools! they travel such long distances with a camel and do not even ride it to help ease their wariness." The father once again stayed silent and conducted his business.

Upon leaving the town, the father turned to his son and said "My son, now you see that you cannot please everyone. You can try your best but there will always be something that somebody will scold you for."

----------------------------------------
i am sorry im not the best of story tellers. there were some parts i may have missed. i was told this story a long time ago.

i did not mean this story as a way to deter the discussion. discussion is a great tool for society. and i did not mean it as a way to insult someone at all. I just wanted make sure people keep in their minds the lesson of this story so that people dont loose sleep over the discussion. it can happen in these topics. plus it adds a bit of tension relief.

(please dont kill me because of the grammar)

Originally Posted by digger2929

If you guys are really curious about a lot of these topics/debatable points I highly recommend watching some youtube videos by Ravi Zacharias. He is an apologetic that travels to universities all around the world often debating atheists. He leaves to standing ovations. Was just watching some and already feel pumped up to meet some of you guys when I go sharing on campus =)

This guy probably only gets standing ovations from other Christians, big woop. All it took was for me to watch one youtube video to find out just how much of a bigot he is. He says homosexuals shouldn't enact on their homosexuality because it's unnatural and a sin.

Originally Posted by rcrw88

Kind of sad that a tiny little comment like that is enough to have posts censored, however.

Have posts been censored? (If so, which ones?)

(Still waiting on your response btw)

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Have posts been censored? (If so, which ones?)

(Still waiting on your response btw)

I just went through this thread... all of it :S . There was only one moderation that cited a violation of the Code of Conduct. We don't moderate on whims and everything goes under review. However, we ask that you do read the code of conduct and keep discussions respectful towards other members. If you feel that this is not happening, hit the report button and moderators will be notified.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

I don't know why you're being so condescending, it's not helping your case at all. You are coming off as very rude. I have not said anything mean or offensive on this thread and I have voiced my opinions on the issue respectfully. You can at least attempt to do the same.
I do think it's a waste of time for professors to have to erase all the chalk boards in lecture halls. That has nothing to do with my opinion of God or any religion at all. Lecure halls are for lecturing, not for advertising and wasting time. Besides, advertising is one thing. Lots of groups and clubs do that on campus. But this is too much. In people's residences especially is crossing a line. I wouldn't care if it was a group or club that I was part of - I do not agree with advertising messages all over the campus via chalk messages on the ground 5 feet away from each other, in people's homes (that is what a residence is) and even near the hospital where most of the people don't go to McMaster.

Hey Kathy... sorry if I came across like that :(. I really didn't mean to be rude... I don't exactly know it was I said that was condescending... Maybe the chalkboard thing? I just don't think that saying that the professors take an extra 90 seconds to clear the boards is reason to be upset, that is all.

Most of the stuff I said wasn't directed to you really. So yeah, sorry if you felt offended.

Originally Posted by Souldier

McMaster should arrest people that deface its property, it's pretty embarrassing to have those letters plastered everywhere.

McMaster has absolutely no issue with chalking as long as the regulations are kept (which they were). The residence thing, it's not that they were written everywhere on people's rooms/boards... Some of the people that went chalking went back to their rez and wrote it on their own boards and around the rez where they stay and the floor they live in. I guess you could still argue that some people were "trespassing" or something, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

I'm not sure how everyone else feels, but personally, I'm not against the KGP chalking because it looks bad/offensive to people visiting campus. I think it's inappropriate for the students who pay to come here every day.

It looks bad... maybe tacky, sure. I don't know if it looks offensive (people don't know what it means...). What DOES look offensive is KGB. At the end of the day though, the university is 100% okay with it, so I don't know, maybe something for the MSU to revise?

if god existed, it would be a far crueler entity than the kgb. easily.

Originally Posted by ~*Sara*~

Okay.. a lot of valid points were made here. But honestly, everything that was said won't change someone's belief. Whoever is already christian, jewish, muslim, atheist, buddhist, sikh, of if you believe in just evolution even, etc will REMAIN what they are. Simply supporting your own religion or attacking another's won't change SH*T. You guys completely diverted off the topic of the thread. Audriana was merely asking what KGP stood for, not why it's there, who did it, what are they implying, what do they want, etc. And seriously, like other people mentioned several times, there are a lot of things that bother all of us, but as soon as it turns into a conversation about faith and religion we all suddenly pop up and start making a whole big deal out of it. Why?! I have my religion and you all have yours. If I want to explore your religion I'll do so by will and on my own. Similarly, I will defend what I believe in, within limits of not offending others, and just simply stating a point, not implying that the other person is wrong or anything. And at the same time, I expect others to respect my view too. Seriously, we're past the childish arguing, yet the thread keeps growing and growing day by day...

I think the internal strife which is causing this debate within this lengthy thread is the antagonism that exists between religion and science. I agree that individuals should be entitled to their beliefs - that individuals should be able to possess a value system which represents the culture to which they belong. However, it is when this liberty is used as a means to spread their beliefs to others in the name of free speech does it become a dangerous phenomenon. When a single cultural group uses their beliefs as a defense against the progression of mankind's intelligence, humanity on the whole is set back. Personally, I find it incredibly frustrating that evolution is a "contested" issue in the American education system - here, religion is being used as a logical counter to a scientific theory, but this is a sophism. Science is not a matter of faith - it is a matter of fact. Stating that one "believes" in evolution is akin to saying that one believes in the theory of the heliocentric galaxy - again, faith is not involved here, but empirical observation and logical reasoning are.

I do not mean to say that religion is erroneous or evil in any sense. I believe (notice the verb being used) that the "glue" that holds human civilization together is culture, and religion, both historically and presently, plays a pivotal role in the definition of one's culture. Indeed, I would describe myself religiously as a moderate Buddhist and Pantheist (or, as Richard Dawkins says, a believer in the Einsteinian perception of God/The Universe). Nevertheless, my "religious beliefs", per say, do not interfere with my absorption of new knowledge on the nature of life and the material world. I accept evolution as a scientific theory which, although may have room for expansion, logically explains how life on earth, including humanity, progressed and came into being through the eons.

So, when you say that this argument is "childish", I disagree. I think that when an issue of science is refuted by a matter of culture, we are obliged to keep the debate alive and not allow "faith" to overcome "fact".

Or, in much less grandiose terms, it's healthy to debate religion.

Just a note to Mowicz:
Both exons and introns are not 'nonsense' parts of DNA - while introns may have originally seemed useless some say it may serve as some sort of regulation for the type of protein or its expression.

However, exons are ... exactly what the final mRNA product contains.

Originally Posted by Shmowen

I think the internal strife which is causing this debate within this lengthy thread is the antagonism that exists between religion and science.

Hmmm, not even that I don't think. I love the sciences and I don't see strife with my faith.

Originally Posted by Shmowen

I agree that individuals should be entitled to their beliefs - that individuals should be able to possess a value system which represents the culture to which they belong. However, it is when this liberty is used as a means to spread their beliefs to others in the name of free speech does it become a dangerous phenomenon. When a single cultural group uses their beliefs as a defense against the progression of mankind's intelligence, humanity on the whole is set back.

hmmm, also interesting. If you see "God" as this, inferior lie that a particular group of society holds to and, well, you want to be respectful, then I can see how that makes sense. But... "God" is not just a nice IDEA that some people have, it's a reality, and therefore just like to some people, the "reality" of evolution has been proven to them and so they feel like it should be the dominant view of the two... to others, God has been proven to them in a much more real way even than science or anything else.

But I'd like to move away from science, cuz I'm in sciences and to me, it doesn't conflict with God...

So then, why should the "reality" that there is no God be DOMINANT over the "reality" that there IS a God? Why should McMaster seek to be "Godless" when, very possibly, more than half of it's population is NOT Godless? Why should people's reality of God be sensored, controled, managed, directed the right way, and submit to the dominant claims of secular beliefs, humanism, or aetheism?

Originally Posted by Shmowen

Personally, I find it incredibly frustrating that evolution is a "contested" issue in the American education system - here, religion is being used as a logical counter to a scientific theory, but this is a sophism. Science is not a matter of faith - it is a matter of fact.

Meh... science is a matter of fact, and it isn't. Papers are published AAAAAAALLLLLL the time saying "oooops, we were wrong about this". It's not a bad thing, nor discredits the value of scientific study, I think it just puts it in its place - a wonderful field that helps us understand many aspects of life. So science is a matter of fact... until it is proven wrong. Which again, we all know, and it's fine, and I am still fascinated by my program and studies. So a few other things...

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God . Science doesn't deal with God. God is not an experiment and so science will never be used to PROVE anything about God. Some of the scientific discoveries might HELP to support one or the other (I can't think of how it could help to support the idea that there IS no God right now... but I'm sure someone can think of one...)

Originally Posted by drez99

(I can't think of how it could help to support the idea that there IS no God right now... but I'm sure someone can think of one...)

Science helps support the idea that there is no God by providing zero evidence. In science, the leading theories are determined by evidence and the credibility of said evidence. Religion and "god" have no evidence at all to support their existence, which is a valid reason to ignore religion altogether as a valid idea or source of wisdom.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Science helps support the idea that there is no God by providing zero evidence. In science, the leading theories are determined by evidence and the credibility of said evidence. Religion and "god" have no evidence at all to support their existence, which is a valid reason to ignore religion altogether as a valid idea or source of wisdom.

I'm sorry, is this the same science that was confused whether light was a particle or wave until Einstein came along?