Originally Posted by lawleypop

There's a difference between debating about religion and telling someone to go sit on a different bench when she already said all benches were full.

You can debate about religion and enlighten people to your viewpoint, or even discover something about your own thoughts or beliefs.

As opposed to the bench topic, which we agree is at a standstill.

I'd be willing to bet that no one has changed their mind on where they stand on religion after reading through this entire thread.

This whole debate is fundamentally flawed:
There is no logical way to prove the existence of god. but the belief in god is based on faith, a believing without seeing.

is religion good or bad? its both. there are equal arguements for both sides.

this thread is also a standstill.

Originally Posted by cocchiarella

I'd be willing to bet that no one has changed their mind on where they stand on religion after reading through this entire thread.

This whole debate is fundamentally flawed:
There is no logical way to prove the existence of god. but the belief in god is based on faith, a believing without seeing.

is religion good or bad? its both. there are equal arguements for both sides.

this thread is also a standstill.

probably not, but that isn't to say that people can't learn something new.
off the top of my head, I got some dose of some bible quotes and learnt a new word and got suggested some books to check out.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

probably not, but that isn't to say that people can't learn something new.
off the top of my head, I got some dose of some bible quotes and learnt a new word and got suggested some books to check out.

still doesnt change the state of the debate

I do not worship what you worship,
nor do you worship what I worship.
And I will not worship what you worship,
Nor will you worship what I worship.
Your way is yours, and my way is mine.
(Surah 109)
Pretty sure this describes the thread. Atheists are not going to believe in God even if you spam the campus with KGB, and Religious people will continue to believe in God regardless of what new discoveries science formulates. Just end this

Originally Posted by cocchiarella

I think she is whining for the sake of whining. looks like we are at a stand still.

i actually laughed out loud when i read the "How can a conversation going no where last for so long"

*cough cough* All 23 pages of this thread... *slow clap*

Actually, I'm not whining. I'm just saying that it's stupid to chalk up the benches where people want to sit, especially when it was so nice outside a few days ago. It's a legit concern, and I would be saying it no matter what group/organization/person did it.

You're just repeating everything I've already said in one post. Trolls get the ignore list.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

Actually, I'm not whining. I'm just saying that it's stupid to chalk up the benches where people want to sit, especially when it was so nice outside a few days ago. It's a legit concern, and I would be saying it no matter what group/organization/person did it.

You're just repeating everything I've already said in one post. Trolls get the ignore list.

Ignore list?

Originally Posted by lawleypop

Ignore list?

There's an Ignore List on MacInsiders. If you put someone on it, you don't have to see anything they say.
Click their name, then "View public profile", then "Add to Ignore List".

Originally Posted by Kathy2

There's an Ignore List on MacInsiders. If you put someone on it, you don't have to see anything they say.
Click their name, then "View public profile", then "Add to Ignore List".

O_O Lolwuttttttttttttttt.
I've been on here for how long now?
Thanks for filling me in.

I WONDER HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BLOCKED ME XDDDDDDDDD

Originally Posted by Kathy2

Actually, I'm not whining. I'm just saying that it's stupid to chalk up the benches where people want to sit, especially when it was so nice outside a few days ago. It's a legit concern, and I would be saying it no matter what group/organization/person did it.

You're just repeating everything I've already said in one post. Trolls get the ignore list.

this hurts me so deeply. how will i ever recover.

Originally Posted by AfroMaestro

The Red Cross flag is often confused with the Flag of Switzerland which is the opposite of it. In 1906, to put an end to the argument of Turkey that the flag took its roots from Christianity, it was decided to promote officially the idea that the Red Cross flag had been formed by reversing the federal colours of Switzerland, although no clear evidence of this origin had ever been found[5].


Then again, I'm quoting Wikipedia. So take it with a grain of salt.

Definitely interesting. The information about the Swiss flag came from a handbook I got from the Red Cross while doing a first aid course. Although, if that's been their official stance since 1906 than it would obviously be what's written in their materials. However, most religious crosses look more like a t than a +, with the lower body being distended. The use of the Swiss colours and the shape of the cross lend a bit of credence to the story.

The Red Crescent was used because certain Muslim countries had a problem with the religious connotations of a cross, and a Muslim religious symbol was required.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Thanks! I'm curious then why they chose to use a red crescent in muslim countries, if religion plays no part in the organization? I can't seem to find it on the wikipedia article.

Right at the beginning of the Russo-Turkish war of 1876-1878, the Ottoman Empire, although it had acceded to the Geneva Convention of 22 August 1864 without any reservation, declared that it would henceforth use the red crescent to mark its own ambulances, while respecting the red cross sign protecting enemy ambulances. The Sublime Porte stated that the distinctive sign of the Convention "has so far prevented Turkey from exercising its rights under the Convention, because it gave offence to Muslim soldiers". [10]

There followed a lengthy exchange of correspondence, which we shall not dwell upon here. [11] Ultimately, the modification unilaterally decided by the Porte was accepted, but only for the duration of the conflict under way.

The Ottoman Empire nonetheless continued to use the red crescent emblem to indicate its health services, and to request that the red crescent be recognized by the international conferences convened to revise the Geneva Convention, while at the same time Persia called for recognition of the red lion and sun emblem.

The Diplomatic Conference of 1906 maintained the general rule of the unity of the distinctive sign, while authorizing the Ottoman Empire and Persia to formulate reservations. [12] The Diplomatic Conference of 1929, on the other hand, agreed to recognize the red crescent emblem, which was used by Turkey and Egypt, and the red lion and sun emblem, used by Persia; nevertheless, in order to forestall further requests in future, the Conference made a point of clearly specifying that no new emblems would be recognized. [13]

The outcome was Article 19 of the Geneva Convention of 27 July 1929 which, while retaining the general rule of the unity of the distinctive sign, authorized use of the red crescent emblem or the red lion and sun emblem for the countries which were already using them. [14]

The entire debate around the signs is very interesting, there has been alot written about whether they are religious connotations or no religious connotations! Some feel that there should be on unifying sign.

You can read it here: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMB8

Originally Posted by Alpha2Omega

I wouldn't say that anyone is pushing their ideas on you, rather just trying to cause consideration. Some of the vending machines have "Coca-cola" all over them, but no one seems to complain about that, or find that offensive.

KGP is simply a question, do you know God personally? I don't see how it's being forceful in anyway. The posters for SRA nominations are everywhere, but that in no way forces their opinions upon you either.

If you've got concerns with it, maybe you should go out to the event and talk to someone?

LOL I think you missed the point of my post. That's exactly what I was saying. No one would care if I wrote "I like pie" all over the place, because I'm not puishing anything. I was defending KGP.

But thanks for taking it the wrong way 0_o

ahh KPG is taking over my facebook too!
side ad:

Knowing God Personally
Can we KGP?
Why do we want to KGP?
How can we start to KGP?
Find out this Friday @ HS
1A1 @ 6:15 Bring your questions

_______ is attending.
RSVP to this event.

I believe what we have concluded here is that religion, if acting as a demagogic concept of sorts, inspires people to do morally forbidden acts, such as converting people without their consent, then it can be said to be "bad". However, if religion provides one with cultural integrity and morality, then it can be said to be "good".

Now, from how I am understanding the arguments being posted here in defense of religion, religion's greatest achievement is the latter aforementioned point - that is, it provides one with a set of social mores. In other words, religion gives individuals an ethical philosophy to follow. The main problem I see here is the distinction between this modern definition of religion and philosophy. If an individual were to live their life strictly and solely in accordance with the ethical teachings of Immanuel Kant and were to never accept or allow for philosophical criticism of those ethical teachings, that person, however convincing Kantian philosophy may be, would be described as being dogmatic for not accepting the teachings of any other school of philosophy. On the other hand, if an individual were to live their life in accordance with a single religion, or even in accordance with a single sect of that religion, they are described as being a member of that faith, and their beliefs, however exclusive, are asserted to be things that must be accepted and not scrutinized. I realize that individuals are entitled to their beliefs, just as I am entitled to my own philosophical standings on certain issues. But why is that my philosophical standings are not as sacrosanct as the religious beliefs of another? My philosophical opinions are even of the same nature as religious beliefs - I cannot see my moral guidelines, I cannot prove them to exist as scientific laws of the universe, but I believe them to be applicable to human beings and to be morally true (or at least morally praiseworthy). It appears that if we are to label one idea, like religion, as being "beyond the realm of public criticism", then all ideas of this ethical, social, and cultural sort must also be deemed equally sacrosanct and not up for public discussion.

Isn't that the last thing we want to do - suffocate intellectual debate on what is moral?

I just spent 20minutes delving through this thread, and I must say this has been a very interesting thread (probably the most intense and involved I have ever seen on MacInsiders). I don't want to get involved in the discussion of religion or any aspect of this thread, I just want to make an observation.

I find it remarkable that three letters chalked all over campus caused such a vivid and very compelling thread. 3 LETTERS, that was all it took to get students discussing issues that revolve around McMaster life. I cant help but feel that all MSU/SRA events that need massive student input should be advertised in a similar way. If the use of chalking to promote SRA/MSU events, has the same impact writing "KGP" on the student body, it seems like McMaster students would be more involved in their schools issues. I see 24 pages of discussion, why can't we use the same emotion we have about religion on campus to make this school a better place by attending SRA meetings, and getting involved in charities. I think if anything this thread shows that the student body is strong in its opinions and that there is potential for more from the MSU members. USE THIS ENERGY TO make a difference in this world! Again this is just an observation so don't dwell on anything I may have said that you think is wrong.

On a final note, I think the KGP writing all over school has been beneficial to students. Now before people think about killing me let me explain. This whole "knowing god personally" deal if anything has brought about a bright and lively debate about religion on campus. Students are expressing opinions, learning about the views of others and in general expanding their views on the prevelance of religion on this campus. Kudos MACINSIDERS crew, a lovely debate is always a great sign of a student body that still gives a shit about their school.


Just my 2 cents