Campus Crusade For Curmudgeons.

This title is parody on Campus Crusade for Christ (it has changed its name) Some believers can be called curmudgeons, but I like the term for nonbelievers.

When students question the myths of religion, it fits the bill.  And, to learn large numbers of students are questioning the status quo and searching for their own interpretation of the universe, we are all better off.

What nonbelievers lack on campus’ is a space where they can socialize.  Churches fund comfortable student centers.  International students are often provided space by the local university, as are black students.  There is at least one national student atheist organization and perhaps some day it, or others, will fund campus hang outs for nonbelievers.

One thing that would encourage more nonbelievers to come out would be more faculty support.  While there are plenty of atheists across the disciplines on any campus, the logical place for sponsorship of a student atheist group would be in a Department of Religion.

Unfortunately, faculty in these departments are most often believers and have less interest in atheist students.  It’s not they treat atheists unkindly, they just don’t identify with them.

I had years of experience in the political wing of the gay rights movement.  It was poorly funded for years.  Slowly that changed when wealthy gay individuals began giving significant money to promote equal rights.  Why they did not at the beginning, I don’t understand.

Perhaps wealthy nonbelievers will eventually fund chapters of Campus Crusade for Curmudgeons.

FaceBook, Red River Freethinkers

24 Responses

  1. Michael Ross

    “What nonbelievers lack on campus’ is a space where they can socialize.”

    Or perhaps the non-existence of some deity is not something worth socializing over.
    When I was in college I was not a Christian but felt very accepted by fellowship groups. It was one thing that drew me to Christ.

    1. Michael 1:17 “When I was in college I was not a Christian but felt accepted by fellowship groups.”

      Do you think it would have been the same had you been an out gay, or, an out atheist ? (I don’t know, just asking)

      1. Michael Ross

        I have no idea but I hope that would have been the case.

        “When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”(Mark 2:15-16)

        1. entech

          Did the sinners with whom Yeshua was breaking bread include those who had a little ambivalence about their sexual proclivities? If not, are there degrees of sin with which it is OK to associate and some which it is not?
          Is the scripture to be taken completely and literally in each and every way? If so why is there not a lot more stone throwing going on?

          Can any of it really be taken seriously?

          1. entech 5:01 re: Did the sinners with who Yeshua broke bread do a little sexual sin on the side? What degree of sin can someone have and still be OK to associate with?

            Good questions. We know just a tiny bit of information about the 12 guys Jesus hung out with. Why is so much detail left out? And, since Jesus seemed tolerant of homosexuals, we have to wonder why? Maybe some close to him were gay and he didn’t see anything wrong with it. He did not condeme the people of Sodom and Gamorrah for being gay.

            And, what of the people Jesus zapped and made well. Statistically, some had to be gay. That’s unless he singled out the gay ones and said, “Thus shalt not be healed.”

    2. entech

      There is a very good reason for joining the faithful.
      “I didn’t believe but I was lonely and they were nice to me, therefore creationism is true and irrefutable. Even though I have a lot to say and mainly make more sense than most Christian commentators on this site, I will still quote the bible as if it were true in every tiny detail and actually relevant, because it is easier than thinking for myself”

      1. Michael Ross

        Actually I was familiar with creation science long before I made a decision for Christ. I knew He was my creator before I accepted Him as Savior.

        My faith is based only on the need to feel accepted and I can’t think for myself. I’ll go out and blow snow while you come up with some more insults.

        1. entech

          Michael, not really intended as a deliberate insult in the usual sense, just a bit of exaggeration based on your 1:17. And I have been known to be given to exaggeration and hyperbole.

          It is possibly a failing on my part that I can’t imagine how someone with so many sensible things to say can take the book as being so literal and be so vehemently anti-gay.

          Having been educated in a Church of England school, my story is the opposite. I had well and truly drifted away by my college days and was only more deeply confirmed in my lack of belief. in Britain (and most of Europe)at that time Christianity did not have the dominant position it had and still has in America, in fact the rationalist approach had more support and was more welcoming. I must say that the idea of creation/creator was one of the things I rejected with some diffidence, as I still don’t have a definitive alternative in my mind (a few candidates though). I was not aware of “Creation Science” or “Intelligent Design” as a serious belief until much later, I find this much easier to reject than the original story I was taught at school.

          1. Michael Ross

            ” can’t imagine how someone with so many sensible things to say can take the book as being so literal and be so vehemently anti-gay.”

            Much of the Bible is symbolism and requires interpretation. It does, however, all have a literal application. God’s condemnation of homosexuality is literal and requires no interpretation.

          2. Michael 1:24 “…is symbolism and requires interpretation. It does, however, all have a literal application.”

            This sound so similar to what Wanna B Sure wrote many times. It’s that through careful study, one can tell the difference between what was a cultural or sybolic message and what to take literally.

            The problem is, thousands of people spend their careers studying the Bible. They each agree with you there is symbolism and literal messages. They just don’t agree among themselves which is which. That’s why we have a gazillion denominations and disagreements within them. And, that why thousands, including entire denominations do not agree with your definitive conclusion condemnation of homosexuality is literal. Without this consensus, it has to remain classified as an opinion.

    1. buzz 3:45 “To thine own self be true. If you can’t believe, don’t believe.”

      Speaking for myself, I like to think I could believe if there were just a tiny bit of evidence there is a super natural being. The Bible, written by unknown people who were not present when super natural events were supposed to have happened, is not evidence. Instead, it is myth.

      Your quote, “To thine own self be true,” might apply. That is, demand credible evidence from those making political and religious claims, don’t let others persuade you to lower your standards and maintain the same standards over time. It seems to me nonbelievers have been more consistant in their standards than believers have been in their’s.

  2. Michael Ross

    Psalms 19:
    1The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork.
    2Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night shows knowledge.
    3There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
    4Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world

    You’re just not listening Jon.

    Try this one:

    1. Michael 5:49 I read your scripture, did not open the Utube. That, “The heavens declare the glory of God…” might have been some goat herder’s opinion, but is not evidence. I know you are trying to help–appreciate your good intentions.

      1. entech

        The video is one amongst many to talk of amazing proof for a young earth or similar. With apologies to David Hume, the only thing amazing is that so many people take it so seriously.

        1. Michael Ross

          It baffles me how a scientist can present so much evidence from science and quote other scientists, some Christian and creationists, others atheists or agnostics and evolutionists agree to all these problems with evolutionary theory and you can just blow creation off as a fiery tale. I used to believe in evolution as it was all I heard but decided on a scientific basis that the evidence came down on the side of special creation which occurred several thousand years ago.

          1. entech

            It baffles me how a scientist can present so much evidence from science and quote other scientists, some Christian and creationists, others atheists or agnostics and evolutionists agree to all these problems with a 6000 year old earth. And so on, we must forever remain on opposite sides for this one.

            Incidentally I would say that to try and make a case that some one like Bruce Malone is a scientist and thus qualified to have some special expertise is, perhaps, a little bit of a stretch. The man is a chemical engineer, which makes his opinions on the subject no more valid than mine I am an engineer, A chartered engineer by membership of two institutes incorporated by royal charter. A second degree in computer science probably trumps his B.Sc., But it does not make me a scientist and is totally irrelevant to any valid opinion on the age of the earth, the universe or my neighbours pet cat.

            If I want to know about such things I listen to someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, with relevant degrees from Harvard, UofT Austin and Columbia, and actually works in the field as direct of the Hayden Planitarium and has been given a distinguished service award by NASA. That is a scientist and if you want his opinion on creationism check Youtube one I particularly like is

          2. entech

            PS. seen the video before and could never work out if it was funny or just anti-semitic. But it does make good on the point I like about, there may be a creator, but, how can you say your is leads the competition for one and only.

  3. buzz marick

    Jon: All I know and believe is that I was so sick and tired of being miserable trying to figure out life, that I had to surrender to Life on Lifes terms. I equate it to not giving sh@t about things I have no control over and probably non of my business. One of my Friends favorite responses to stuff he can’t buy into is “YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT” hard to argue against that. All I know is that what I have and feel is a gift from outside of humanity and the price was alot of mental anguish and yearning and earning some humility. If you will, Good Orderly Direction. Star Wars might be right on target in some ways. PEACE.

    1. buzz 5:52 “so sick and tired of being miserable..”

      Your circumstances sound much like those of poster, Stan. He was in the dumps and found religion helped. Good for both of you that it helps.

  4. Jinx

    I’m with Jon, their is no evidence of God’s existence or nonexistence. The Bible is not evidence, it was written solely by man over the last 4-5 millenia and no matter how much you believe in God you can’t change that simple fact.

    1. Jinx 9:38 “was written solely be man over the last 4-5 can’t change that simple fact.”

      I’ve been reading detail of scholars who pour over all the version of material in the Bible. There are parts that appeared early, then were omited, then reappeared for a while. All part of human preferences as to what is in there.

  5. Stanta

    Jon, I was not down in the dumps, I was suicidal. Big difference. It as ‘t a gradual thing either, it was done in seconds.

    I want to also add that I a not uneducated, though without a degree I have the equivalent of 7 years post secondary education most of it in the hard science/engineering area. That doesn’t include the self education that 40 years of reading 3-5 books a week of anything from fantasy/sf to history to hard science.

Comments are closed.