Originally Posted by MarkA

How people can be in a higher education institution and still be so closed-minded and intolerant is extremely depressing to me.

Intolerant? Because I find religion ridiculous I'm intolerant? I don't shun people in their face if they tell me they're religious, I could care less. I have no problem tolerating religion.

Close-minded? About what? I'm close minded about your invisible ruler in the sky? It's sad that people can be taught to question so much in their course work, to not accept things for granted, yet they're perfectly fine accepting religious dogmatism.

It's laughable that a group of university educated people can go about telling people to "Know God Personally". You can't even prove this guy exists, why in the hell would I want to know your make believe friend personally?

I think I'll start up a new social club. Students for the Existence of Unicorns, and our sister group Invisible Friendsapalooza. I expect you all to be very open-minded about us.

Originally Posted by knox

I think I'll start up a new social club. Students for the Existence of Unicorns, and our sister group Invisible Friendsapalooza. I expect you all to be very open-minded about us.

It generally doesn't help when the purpose of the club is to make fun of religion...

Originally Posted by temara.brown

He wasn't being a jerk. He wasn't bothering to appreciate choices.. or think. I wasn't too bothered by it because I'm used to him being like that. He's old. Though I'm not one of those who's afraid of 'disrespecting' him because he's my father. I disagreed with his views, so I told him so. Move on to what's for dinner (hopefully it'll be chili!)

Sorry about that I thought it sounded like you were thinking along those lines. I know i'd be pretty peeved if my parents said something like that.

I think when it comes down to it, what people here need to respect a person's choice. If you were to come up to me and try to convert me or hand me stuff, especially after I was told that I "went all wrong" from a family member, I would be upset by it and react accordingly. It would be best for all parties to leave it as something for an individual to choose. Don't bombarded people with this crap.

There's I think a difference in respecting people's choice and not suggesting people consider another one. While I understand why you would be upset in that situation I don't think it would be fair to say that what's being done is not leaving to the individual to choose. In the end its ultimately their choice. I don't think its wrong to share your worldview in a non-confrontational manner as long as its not (to borrow your word) bombarding them with it. (i.e., doing things that would p off a reasonable person)

It was not a good idea because:
- you're supposed to be trained to be a welcome week rep, hence the lanyard. They were liabilities for the uni.
- They are prohibited from doing this in club policy (at least I remember something along the lines of this from the last time I had reason to look it up). Their time is during clubsfest.
- Welcome week is supposed to be something that's inclusive. Trying to convert people or send out the message that "this campus is for christ" is NOT a good idea. Especially when nerves are high for both the students and their parents.

Good point about the club policy and the liability issue. Why didn't someone point this out to them at the time. As to the second part, I think that's exactly what I was trying to say in my last post in which I was suggesting an alternate constructive way they could have made contact with the students.

Ya the condom thing can make people uncomfortable but it's supposed to be about keeping everyone healthy, whatever their choice may be. I agree that the message could have been better delivered though.

I actually do appreciate what they're trying to do. But that's also why I made the suggestions I did about the joint booklet idea. A way that the religious clubs could provide something of value without being threatening or creating division during welcome week.

The people are p.o.'d because of a general dislike of spam are pretty vocal on this too.. spam is the worst!

I think though that the level of anger is very different between the two groups. The people upset about the spam tend to be like "Ugh spam; Annoying!" While the people I was talking about... well I'm sure you can read what some people have written about religion and religious individuals.

I'd recommend a revision of their mission altogether. Are they there to convert "lost students" or to make information available about their beliefs. I was never comfortable with even the name "campus for christ" and would have love to see it changed.

Compare it to the MSA who's purpose is:
The main aim of the MSA is to facilitate the practice of Islam for Muslim students of McMaster University in particular, and for Muslims in the McMaster University community at large. In doing so, the MSA seeks to interact with other clubs and associations that it may elucidate the true message of Islam to McMaster students and surrounding communities. The means taken by the MSA to fulfill this mandate shall, in no way, violate any Islamic principles as oulined in the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace). The MSA must, at all times, subject itself to the judgement of Islamic jurisprudence. Therefore, the objectives of the McMaster MSA can be summarized, but not limited by the following: 1. To provide facilities for daily as well as Friday congretional prayers. 2. To organize activities of an educational nature which may be beneficial not only to Muslims, but also to non-Muslims. 3. To organize activities of a social nature for the interaction of Muslims. 4. To establish an organization that may fulfill any needs a Muslim may have on the McMaster campus, be it social, moral, educational or any other.

Much friendlier.

PS These are the two main ones I ever really encountered which is why I chose to contrast the two.

I agree; much friendlier sounding. But generally the approach they have taken is create exposure and knowledge of their belief with the hope that those with the knowledge would choose their belief. Of course the way they put it, it just sounds bad.

PS. your dog is cute, but I can understand that someone might be scared of it. One bad experience with a dog and some people never want to go near one again.

Originally Posted by arathbon

Good point about the club policy and the liability issue. Why didn't someone point this out to them at the time. As to the second part, I think that's exactly what I was trying to say in my last post in which I was suggesting an alternate constructive way they could have made contact with the students.

I agree; much friendlier sounding. But generally the approach they have taken is create exposure and knowledge of their belief with the hope that those with the knowledge would choose their belief. Of course the way they put it, it just sounds bad.

We asked them to stop. They refused. I went on a goose chase for the res manager who said it was the fyeo's job who then said it was the res manager's job. After all the running around, my co-planner and I could only get them to agree to stop handing out pamphlets.

I thought the way the MSA had their mission statement set up was ideal. How does it sound bad? They're educating people about their beliefs, allowing them to make choices, and respecting them whatever they may be. Plus, they're advocating for the people who practice their beliefs. Seems reasonable to me!

Originally Posted by knox

Intolerant? Because I find religion ridiculous I'm intolerant? I don't shun people in their face if they tell me they're religious, I could care less. I have no problem tolerating religion.

Yet you mock them as fools and suggest they don't belong in University

Close-minded? About what? I'm close minded about your invisible ruler in the sky? It's sad that people can be taught to question so much in their course work, to not accept things for granted, yet they're perfectly fine accepting religious dogmatism.

How do you know everyone who believes in a god just does so because they grew up religious and have never examined their beliefs and just follow the commands of the latest and greatest t.v. preacher?

Your view on religious individuals is close minded: "They're all drones to religious dogma. They're fools to believe in what they do. If someone doesn't come to the same conclusion on a purely philosophical question then they're wrong and don't deserve to attend University"

It's what you sound like.

It's laughable that a group of university educated people can go about telling people to "Know God Personally". You can't even prove this guy exists, why in the hell would I want to know your make believe friend personally?

How can someone deserve to be in University who knows that you can't scientifically prove, only disprove. Since God is not a testable hypothesis (only YEC is testable and its not even THAT widely held of an interpretation) it can't disproven either. It really makes the whole thing quite debatable.

However, would you deny that some people believed themselves to have had a personal interaction with a higher being. They could be mistaken but that doesn't mean they're making it up.

I think I'll start up a new social club. Students for the Existence of Unicorns, and our sister group Invisible Friendsapalooza. I expect you all to be very open-minded about us.

Oh my. You got me. I'm fine with invisible friends but I you can't prove Unicorns!

Originally Posted by temara.brown

We asked them to stop. They refused. I went on a goose chase for the res manager who said it was the fyeo's job who then said it was the res manager's job. After all the running around, my co-planner and I could only get them to agree to stop handing out pamphlets.

Hey Tamara,

I was one of the guys helping out with the move-in, wearing the C4C shirts.
I'm not sure who was told to not help out anymore, however, I never heard of anyone being told to not do it that year.
This year was certainly different, however, even at that the MSU rules that were pointed to were thought to be new.
In 2008 Campus for Christ had offered to help out and had been granted that privilege. There was no time noted at which these rules had been brought up.

I'm not going to get into the flyer's because, to be honest, I don't know where I stand on that. It was an opportunity to promote alternate events to people who wanted an alternative... but handled incorrectly.

Originally Posted by temara.brown

We asked them to stop. They refused. I went on a goose chase for the res manager who said it was the fyeo's job who then said it was the res manager's job. After all the running around, my co-planner and I could only get them to agree to stop handing out pamphlets.

Bureaucracy!

I thought the way the MSA had their mission statement set up was ideal. How does it sound bad? They're educating people about their beliefs, allowing them to make choices, and respecting them whatever they may be. Plus, they're advocating for the people who practice their beliefs. Seems reasonable to me!

I actually had meant Campus for Christ's mission comes off sounding bad. I was meaning that at the very essence of practice the missions aren't that different (the biggest difference I can see might be that Campus for Christ hopes education will lead to conversion while the MSA may or may not), but Campus for Christ's wording just doesn't sound right or sit right with a lot of people.

Originally Posted by temara.brown

Also, wtf is with Campus for Christ's mission statement:

"Campus for Christ exists to help change the world by turning lost students into Christ-centered labourers."

...seriously!?!

Campus for Christ exists to change the world by helping students discover Jesus.

https://www.mygcx.org/c4c_mac/screen/ourPurpose

-------------------
That's certainly the line that I've committed to memory when people ask me what C4C's about. And that is the bottom line mission statement; the turning "lost students into Christ-centered labourers" really stems from that.
If somebody were to accept Jesus, then they'd also be accepting that life prior to that was doing things their own way and ultimately wasn't working out. I can see all too well how the lingo seems derogatory and zealously preachy from where you're standing, but that's ultimately for C4C's leadership to decide if they'll change or not. One thing I've come to realize though is that whichever way you slice it, Jesus' message offends.

ps. T-Brown, the Move-In story sounds...unfortunate lol. I can't see why anybody would continue if they were told that they were breaking the rules - and I mean ANY group on campus....except maybe Redsuits or something.

To Temara: Personally I disagree with being 'preachy' and it seems as though most of the points you've raised address that specifically. If raised properly, would you be uncomfortable hearing about religion at all, ever? The reason I ask is because many people use their beliefs as a source of inspiration...often times people can be trying to share this wonderful experience with them, only to be met with anger and frustration.

Originally Posted by temara.brown

Not to mention the whole idea that humans are superior to animals. That one really irks me.

I'm a bit confused by this...I always see people saying this thought 'bothers them' but why? Are you (as in plural, the people who have this perspective) suggesting we're equivalent to all living things? Whether yes or no, that sounds like a belief to me...something you've accepted without specific proof.

Don't get me wrong, I love animals...but I'm clearly smarter than my pet cat. In my experience, often times people act self-righteous when they give a statement like that (you haven't in your post, I'm simply refering to most people I know with this perspective)...kind of like "look at you, you're a terrible person because how dare you think any less of those poor animals?"

So the question is, why doesn't it sit right? The fact that you believe animals are our equals (perfectly valid belief, but it is just that) makes you uncomfortable when someone suggests otherwise...but this sounds like everything else being mentioned in this thread.

I appreciate having events on the topic of religion but it all depends on how they are run. I went to the Experience Ramadan event in 2008 and had a blast! I learned a lot about their beliefs and ate yummy food! The event was tastefully done and really focused on including everyone. No one told me I should convert to anything nor even gave me the impression that they wanted me to. There wasn't spam all over campus to promote it either. I heard of it through word of mouth.

I've gone to many Muslim Student Association events (including Experience Ramadan on several occasions) and I have to say I was actually disappointed with it...in 2008 in particular. It gave Muslims a bad name...as someone coming to learn about Islam and with plenty of questions, I was hoping to be inspired by the event. I was expecting to see many confused and disrespectful 'guests' coming and making a scene...but quite the contrary. The 'guests' were some of the most respectful and patient participants. Instead what I found was that the "non-devout Muslims" (ie. those who came just for the food, but don't typically participate in Muslim prayer, etc.) ruined the event and gave them a very bad image. (The 'regulars' as far as I know, were also very respectful and well-behaved).

Any other event with MSA members has given me a positive feeling, I've left feeling happy and inspired. This particular event however, I was very turned off. I saw people shoving past each other to get in line first, I saw people taking 2 plates of food and only eating one, both of which are frowned upon in Islam. Keep in mind, this is a time when Muslims are fasting and emphasizing patience and control over your bodily urges.

So in short, no hate to the Muslims or the MSA...but the people ruined that event for me.

Originally Posted by arathbon

Yet you mock them as fools and suggest they don't belong in University

No, I said it's laughable that people in university would believe in such a thing so strongly, not that they don't belong here.

How do you know everyone who believes in a god just does so because they grew up religious and have never examined their beliefs and just follow the commands of the latest and greatest t.v. preacher?

Your view on religious individuals is close minded: "They're all drones to religious dogma. They're fools to believe in what they do. If someone doesn't come to the same conclusion on a purely philosophical question then they're wrong and don't deserve to attend University"

I could only hope they're religious because they were brought up that way. If someone comes to accept something as make believe as religion on their own terms then I see it as worse.

How can someone deserve to be in University who knows that you can't scientifically prove, only disprove. Since God is not a testable hypothesis (only YEC is testable and its not even THAT widely held of an interpretation) it can't disproven either. It really makes the whole thing quite debatable.

However, would you deny that some people believed themselves to have had a personal interaction with a higher being. They could be mistaken but that doesn't mean they're making it up.

You misinterpreted what I said. Of course you can't scientifically prove or disprove the existence of something that can't be sensually felt. The point was that all throughout the university experience you're taught to question all your beliefs, sources of information, and even question your newly established belief. How then do people accept religion given these recommendations?

And if they were mistaken then it's a seriously stupid mistake. You had an "experience" and so you believe in something as radical as God? I thought we learned about the God-of-the-gaps a while back... hmm, I hear thunder, the cause of that must be that the Gods must be angry. Oh boy, I had a strange feeling in my heart, God does exist after all!

Oh my. You got me. I'm fine with invisible friends but I you can't prove Unicorns!

And this is the best part. It's so distasteful to regard religious followers as more or less idiotic (at least their beliefs are, I'm sure many intelligent people are religious), but if someone beliefs in unicorns or invisible friends clearly they're stupid.

People need to wake up and realize that religion is no different than any other make believe idea you can think up. There is no conceivable reason to believe in religion other than "it makes me feel good", and that's one hell of a shoddy foundation for God.

fear --> denial ---> delusions.
Knox, you can't be hard on these people. Death, homosexuality, meaninglessness are very scary things for these people. They are just scared and trying to work through their fears the only way their muslim/christian culture has shown them how. I think we can feel some pity for them, but we can't change them.

Originally Posted by knox

No, I said it's laughable that people in university would believe in such a thing so strongly, not that they don't belong here.

I could only hope they're religious because they were brought up that way. If someone comes to accept something as make believe as religion on their own terms then I see it as worse.

You misinterpreted what I said. Of course you can't scientifically prove or disprove the existence of something that can't be sensually felt. The point was that all throughout the university experience you're taught to question all your beliefs, sources of information, and even question your newly established belief. How then do people accept religion given these recommendations?

And if they were mistaken then it's a seriously stupid mistake. You had an "experience" and so you believe in something as radical as God? I thought we learned about the God-of-the-gaps a while back... hmm, I hear thunder, the cause of that must be that the Gods must be angry. Oh boy, I had a strange feeling in my heart, God does exist after all!

And this is the best part. It's so distasteful to regard religious followers as more or less idiotic (at least their beliefs are, I'm sure many intelligent people are religious), but if someone beliefs in unicorns or invisible friends clearly they're stupid.

People need to wake up and realize that religion is no different than any other make believe idea you can think up. There is no conceivable reason to believe in religion other than "it makes me feel good", and that's one hell of a shoddy foundation for God.

Tell you what. Read The Language of God by Francis Collins and get back to me. It's not worth my time to try and explain to you my point of view since I doubt it would change your mind anyways (since you've already made it up), but that book answers a lot of the arguments you made.

Knox - I think just about every point you've raised can be negated and applied to the belief that religion is fake. The only difference is, you're acting superior and assuming you're correct without a shred of evidence.

Example:

Originally Posted by knox

Oh boy, I had a strange feeling in my heart, God does exist after all!

I didn't get a strange feeling in my heart...God can't exist!

It's just as quote unquote, 'silly' to make that logical leap. So which is the less silly alternative? Flip a coin.

You just so happen to believe (strongly it seems) that religion is silly...you haven't given any conclusive evidence to support that notion except "OBVIOUSLY you're stupid if you came to the conclusion without having it forced upon you."

Or perhaps you'd rather believe in tiny little strings that compose the universe and can never be tested? That doesn't sound make-believe at all, and yet, M-Theory (/string theory) is a highly motivated field of study.

There is no conceivable reason to believe in religion other than "it makes me feel good", and that's one hell of a shoddy foundation for God.

If the absence of evidence is reason not to believe in something then you'd better throw away a lot more than the 'ridiculous' notion of religion. I already argued in a previous post (in the kgp thread) that we have no evidence to support any model of the universe, and so by this reasoning we're forced to abandon belief in a universe.

In fact, by similar arguments, there's no reason to believe you even exist besides "I'm an individual and I'm special" and that's a pretty shoddy foundation for existence. (I can elaborate on this if you'd like)

Disclaimer: For anyone trying to 'read between the lines' I've indicated nothing regarding my personal beliefs save that I don't take the question of God, existence, etc. lightly...my specific conclusions are irrelevant, but I strongly oppose the notion that 'there's an obvious answer.' There are no obvious answers in life.

Every conclusion we make is based on our axioms...those fundamental thoughts and beliefs we accept without question. Some peoples' involve the notion of being unique, others the notion of not being unique. There's no way to prove such axioms are correct without using cyclic reasoning.

Originally Posted by arathbon

Tell you what. Read The Language of God by Francis Collins and get back to me. It's not worth my time to try and explain to you my point of view since I doubt it would change your mind anyways (since you've already made it up), but that book answers a lot of the arguments you made.

I actually have read that book, and while it was interesting to see the process that lead an intelligent person to believe in God, it doesn't really provide a satisfactory answer to any of those questions. While I would simply adore it if every Christian was like Francis Collins and willing to accept evidence; he fluctuates wildly between actual rational points and anecdotes that have no basis in logic or in science.

I'd compare it to The God Delusion in a sense, in that it certainly won't change anyone's mind on the subject. It just gives you a bit of justification for your already existing (dis)beliefs. The people who disagree will find plenty of points to argue.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

I didn't get a strange feeling in my heart...God can't exist!

It's just as quote unquote, 'silly' to make that logical leap. So which is the less silly alternative? Flip a coin.

You are correct, that statement is just as illogical. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a (rational) person making that statement. The absence or presence of a feeling clearly has no bearing on whether God exists or doesn't exist. In mocking the use of a feeling as proof of God's existence, it is because of the process, not the output.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

If the absence of evidence is reason not to believe in something then you'd better throw away a lot more than the 'ridiculous' notion of religion. I already argued in a previous post (in the kgp thread) that we have no evidence to support any model of the universe, and so by this reasoning we're forced to abandon belief in a universe.

I actually wanted to talk to you about that point. You're right (to the best of my knowledge) in saying that we can't know the model of the universe. But that clearly doesn't mean we have to abandon belief in a universe! We don't stop believing in water because we don't know the structure of the molecules, the water itself is proof enough. You'd be pretty hard pressed to deny the existence of the universe...

Originally Posted by Mowicz

In fact, by similar arguments, there's no reason to believe you even exist besides "I'm an individual and I'm special" and that's a pretty shoddy foundation for existence. (I can elaborate on this if you'd like)

As in, an objection to cogito ergo sum? Do elaborate!