Richard Dawkins backs atheist camp to give children 'godless alternative', page 3

reply to post by octotom

---

It's funny that you say that kids just accept what the preacher would say at Bible Camp. I'm assuming that at "Atheist Camp", the kids will be taught evolutionary things. Will the kid not just accept that as true [like kids do with their teachers at school]?

You have a valid point but perhaps we are both making assumptions without all the facts.

So let's look at this from a slightly different angle, Agendas' whos' agenda and what agenda.

We are told that Dawkings is behind this so let's go with that, what do we know of Richard Dawkings ?
Well for one he is a very decent polite bloke, very well educated and read, who happens to observe the "fact" that the is no proof of a god and and logically concludes that god probably does not exist.

Dawkings simply has no belief that there is a god so his label is an atheist. No different to a christian not believing in the existence of Allah thus also making the chrsitian an atheist in the eyes of a muslim.

So what harm can Dawkins' atheist camp do to a child's' mind ?
Well very little really. It would perhaps encourage the child to think critically and weigh up evidence based upon observation.
Would this be forcing a belief down the throat of the child ? How could it possibly be ? The child is encouraged to think critically which precludes accepting a belief.

Would the child be guided toward evolution ? Given what I've seen of Dawkins not likely, I would imagine the child being encourage to think critically about the opposite first.

Personally I see no harm being done here, granted there is an element of ridiculing religion, but if there is any truth in religion then this would be (but rarely is) dealt with intellectually.

The wonderful thing about science is that it is changing, new answers are being found to old questions, theories are often revamped, new things are learned, mistakes are made and are often(but not always) admitted.
Science gathers information measures weighs and compares, indeed all is opinion but all involved can disagree and present tier own findings for perusal.

This is not the case with religion, the abrahamic religion begins with an absolute and that is the bibles. There is no other source of this belief there is nothing outside of the bibles and questioning their validity is not only discouraged but punishable.
No evidence is required by bible believers, all that is required is faith, which is believing something without evidence.


If a child is taught to think critically, then he has the opportunity to evaluate the "theory" of evolution, which as Richard Dawkins himself observes is the best answers we have so far.

Later on the child may wish to evaluate the merits of religion, the bibles will still be there for him to evaluate they will be exactly as they were before, nothing is lost.

The evidence presented to the child will be no different than had he not learned to think critically.
Pillars will still hold up the sky, dead people leave their graves and go to the mall, the earth was made before the stars, women are subordinate to men and men can live inside fish. And if you don't believe all this then you will be killed and tortured for all eternity.

Now if an adult wants to believe all that, great kick on you have an option, but a child "Must" be given the opportunity to acquire the tools in order to make that decision.

Well, ignoring the SNIP stirring post by Matteo, I think this is a great idea.

If children can be instructed to believe in supreme beings, angels & demons and other such things, all without any evidence, then why not a camp that allows them to deconstruct that view and allow them to see the world and reality as a series of events with cause & effect? Makes sense to me.

And it certainly doesn't "close their minds" as it was alluded to by another post. I say it does the opposite - it allows them to take a perspective that has the ability to *adapt* to change and new information. Scientific theories and hypotheses can often be proven wrong when new information comes along - which is what is so fantastic about science - it can ADMIT it's wrong and adjust it's theories (beliefs) accordingly to the new info.

As long as the camp isn't forcing them to believe (or disbelieve) in things, but rather, showing them that deductive reasoning, logical analysis and common sense are far more valid than factless faith, I say, go for it.

Mod Edit: Removed censor circumvention.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by moocowman

---

You BELIEVE there is no god. Christianity believes there is a god. Two different belief systems. And for all we know unicorns could exist on a different dimensional level, to claim they flat out do not exist is idiotic, because we don't know what's out there. I'm not the one being silly young man.

reply to post by seanizle

---

You BELIEVE there is no god. Christianity believes there is a god.

Please don't dictate to me what I do and do not believe, If you were courteous enough to ask and not presume then we wouldnt be having this chat.

There is no proof that there is a god (in this case as defined by the bibles), I observe no evidence for such a being. I therefore have no belief in your god, if you cannot (or choose not to) figure out the difference, then may I suggest you take a little me time to consider these thing with your own thoughts.

reply to post by Amagnon

---

Actually I am agnostic - and atheists go further than not believing - they deny the possibility of a god.

Well that's a bit like saying all xtians are child abusers, one of the most celebrated (I'm going to pay for the wrong choice of words there lol) atheists is Dawkins he does not deny the possibility of god, although he does observe the improbability of such .

Obviously if you are in error in this instance then you are completely in error.

Originally posted by Amagnon

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by seanizle

---

I really do not understand atheism, its a belief system that does not like belief systems?

How on earth is my having no belief in unicorns a belief ?

Don't be silly young man

Actually I am agnostic - and atheists go further than not believing - they deny the possibility of a god.

While I think there is basically zero chance that any of the organized religions are right and have summed up what the supreme being is - and what his recipe for eternal life is - I do not rule out the possibility that there is some kind of giant geek up there in god-knows-where-land.

I really doubt it - but hey - I also think a tea pot flying in space, and pink unicorns are possible too! About as likely as god, and each other.

your wrong there...even dawkins doesnt say there definately is no god...he just says its very very unlikely..see...even he doesnt deny the possibility of a god...how can he?

are you agnostic about unicorns too?




[edit on 29-6-2009 by alienesque]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by alienesque]

Originally posted by alienesque

Originally posted by Amagnon

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by seanizle

---

I really do not understand atheism, its a belief system that does not like belief systems?

How on earth is my having no belief in unicorns a belief ?

Don't be silly young man

Actually I am agnostic - and atheists go further than not believing - they deny the possibility of a god.

While I think there is basically zero chance that any of the organized religions are right and have summed up what the supreme being is - and what his recipe for eternal life is - I do not rule out the possibility that there is some kind of giant geek up there in god-knows-where-land.

I really doubt it - but hey - I also think a tea pot flying in space, and pink unicorns are possible too! About as likely as god, and each other.

your wrong there...even dawkins doesnt say there definately is no god...he just says its very very unlikely..see...even he doesnt deny the possibility of a god...how can he?

are you agnostic about unicorns too?




[edit on 29-6-2009 by alienesque]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by alienesque]

Dude please check who you're replying to as I have not said what you imply.

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by Amagnon

---

Actually I am agnostic - and atheists go further than not believing - they deny the possibility of a god.

Well that's a bit like saying all xtians are child abusers, one of the most celebrated (I'm going to pay for the wrong choice of words there lol) atheists is Dawkins he does not deny the possibility of god, although he does observe the improbability of such .

Obviously if you are in error in this instance then you are completely in error.

Your last sentence is a gross generalization - each statement, theory or principle may stand or fall on its own merits, not all of my arguments were based on that observation.

Regardless - I think that the definition of atheist seems to preclude any possibility of god(s).

To use a convenient source - though not an authoritative one; from the Wikipedia -

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the assertion that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

Certainly the first two statements of this definition preclude any possibility of god(s) - it could be ventured (I will submit) that the last statement could leave the door open to such a possibility. Not believing in deities I guess may be broadly interpreted, and may not deny the possibility of such.

However -

Agnosticism .. is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. .. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief.[2]

I think if Dawkins position is that it is highly improbable that god(s) exist - then he is more correctly an agnostic.

For me the critical phrase is as follows - "Agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief."

For myself - I dispute the entire validity of belief and truth in explaining either reality or metaphysics. Only knowledge is a viable path to understanding - truth on the other hand is only a path to belief.

reply to post by fapython

---

the key defining thing that seperates Christianity and atheism is the morals that Christianity has. Morals that have protected western society for centuries

Of course your joking right ?

I would wager my morals far exceed that of your jesusgod.

When my son misbehaves I talk with him what does jesus recommend ? -

STONE HIM TO DEATH !!

I learn my friend prefers a relationship with the same sex, I am happy that he or she is happy. What does jesus recommend ?-

Kill him/her !!

I learn my wife was not a virgin when we married, I think "there you go" what did jesus advise ?-

Kill her !!

My friend doe not choose to be a christian I am glad he has the right to choose, what does jesus think ?-

Kill him !!

My country is at war and observe the Geneva convention (hopefully) when it comes to prisoners, what did jesus recommend ?

Kill all the males and keep the little virgin girls to do as you wish with.!!!!

I abhor the thought of slavery what were jesus' views ?

If your slave misbehaves then beat him till he almost dies but if he actually dies then that could be construed as an offense. !!!


Yes we all know how the jesusyahwehgods morals have kept humanity in just the right place.

What a repugnant belief system you look to for your morals .


[edit on 29-6-2009 by moocowman]

reply to post by Amagnon

---

In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

Well that pretty much sums it up and is a fair generalization, so why not start there ?

reply to post by Amagnon

---

I think if Dawkins position is that it is highly improbable that god(s) exist - then he is more correctly an agnostic.

Why not try reading what he has to say, then you will know for sure will you not ?

reply to post by moocowman

---

who happens to observe the "fact" that the is no proof of a god and and logically concludes that god probably does not exist.

The "facts" are always up to interpretation, though. We usually interpret based on our presuppositions. We all do it. So, when he concludes that there is no God, he has a presupposition somewhere that pushes him toward that. Just as people who say there is a God based presuppositions. But, something that theists usually have, that atheists don't, is that they've experienced God in some way. In any event, when looking at "facts" we all carry some presuppositions.

No different to a christian not believing in the existence of Allah thus also making the chrsitian an atheist in the eyes of a muslim.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Muslims look at Christians as "atheist". They believe that we worship the same God, but we're, more or less, infidels because we haven't chosen to "submit" to the same level that they do.

So what harm can Dawkins' atheist camp do to a child's' mind ?
Well very little really. It would perhaps encourage the child to think critically and weigh up evidence based upon observation.

This is something that can't be said out right. We'd have to see how the camp is done. If it is done like most Christian camps I've experienced are, it would do no harm. This is because at Christian camps, it is assumed that the kids are Christian and so the teaching is not so much evidence for the Bible or Christianity, but what the Bible says about various life situations/events/how to live. [Even if you're not Christian at a Christian camp, some of this information could be valuable nonetheless!]

If however, the camp is nothing but a run-down of the evidences/proofs for evolutionism, there could be harm because it really wouldn't allow the child to think for themselves. If that is how the camp is to be run, the correct thing then, if one is worried about kids being indoctrinated, would be to also offer something to show the evidences of something else.

Remember, if atheism/evolutionism had a clear cut, vacuum sealed case, we'd all be that right now. It's not like that though.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at!

Would the child be guided toward evolution ? Given what I've seen of Dawkins not likely, I would imagine the child being encourage to think critically about the opposite first.

If they are encouraged to critically think about the opposite first, I would hope that they would get someone who is qualified to go through the religious end. Know what I mean? Someone who actually knows their stuff. Much like I don't run to the first schmo on the 'net when I'm thinking about evolution/creation. I seek those who have studied/worked in those fields.

Personally I see no harm being done here, granted there is an element of ridiculing religion, but if there is any truth in religion then this would be (but rarely is) dealt with intellectually.

Just for the record, it doesn't bother me in the slightest to have an atheist camp. They can have their camp, the Hindus can have Hindu camp, and the Jews can keep having Jew camp. Maybe we should have an ATS camp! What atheists choose to do doesn't affect me spiritually. My fear though, as I think I've made clear earlier, is that this atheist camp will become what the atheists think is the opposite of Christian/religious camp, which may not exactly be true. We will have to wait and see though.

This is not the case with religion, the abrahamic religion begins with an absolute and that is the bibles.

The absolute that the Abrahamic religions start with is God. He was there before the Bible started to be penned.

There is no other source of this belief there is nothing outside of the bibles and questioning their validity is not only discouraged but punishable.

What do you mean there is nothing outside the Bible? Some very valuable information for Bible study comes from outside the 66 books. Where have you heard that denying the Bible's validity is punishable? People have told me in person they don't believe that Bible to be true, but I don't smack 'em and make them do 100 push-ups for me.

Even in Christian circles, at least those I've been in, we're encouraged to seek the truth for ourselves and not just accept what our pastor says blindly. When I say something about the Bible here on ATS, I would hope that people go and see what I say is truth as well. Perhaps you're thinking of ultra-fundamentalist Christians or one of the Christian-cults, like the Jehovah's Witnesses? If so, it's silly that they're that way. There is very little that is God honoring in that point of view and you're never going to grow to be strong in your faith. You'll always be a baby Christian and always feel threatened when someone attacks your faith. [You'll also think that outward actions will show your spirituality...when they don't! (At least not all the time!)]

No evidence is required by bible believers, all that is required is faith, which is believing something without evidence.

More correctly, faith is believing something without seeing it, not without evidence. Hebrews 11.1 (ESV):

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Assurance can only come with evidence. The evidence isn't always going to be 100% conclusive, but it will point toward something. Often something that we can't see. Many Christians, like myself, like to see some evidence of what I believe in. And, the obviously must be some evidence or else no one would be Christian!

When a Christian says, "All that is required is faith", we mean that all we need is faith in Christ for salvation. It doesn't mean trust the Bible without question or your particular church leaders. Just, trust in Christ for salvation. [Which you can do at any time moocowman! ]

If a child is taught to think critically, then he has the opportunity to evaluate the "theory" of evolution, which as Richard Dawkins himself observes is the best answers we have so far.

Since when he critiques evolution though, I would assume that he carries the presupposition that evolution is true. So, when he looks over the current theory, compared to "new evidence", in his mind, though he not realize it, he makes the two mesh together. As I've said before, we all do this. Our presuppositions are the biggest hurdle we must clear in "critical thinking".

[quotes]Pillars will still hold up the sky,
"Pillars holding up the sky/earth" is a literary term. It's figurative speech. We use figurative speech today as well.

women are subordinate to men

Biblically, women are equal to men, but they have different roles. Men are called to do certain things, as are the women. For example, men are called to be the "leader" of the home. That doesn't mean that the wife is to bow to every if and whim of the husband. A very important passage about the marriage relationship is Ephesians 5.22-33.

and men can live inside fish.

I personally believe that Jonah died, but that's just me.

And if you don't believe all this then you will be killed and tortured for all eternity.

In college, my theology teacher used to say, "Thank goodness we don't have to be theologians to go to heaven!" This is true. The Bible says believe in Christ for salvation. It doesn't matter what you think/believe about the peripheral things.

reply to post by moocowman

---

When my son misbehaves I talk with him what does jesus recommend ? -

STONE HIM TO DEATH !!

I learn my friend prefers a relationship with the same sex, I am happy that he or she is happy. What does jesus recommend ?-

Kill him/her !!

I learn my wife was not a virgin when we married, I think "there you go" what did jesus advise ?-

Kill her !!

Problem is, Jesus never said those things. Jesus came as the fulfillment of the law, which is summed up as, "Treat others as you'd want to be treated and love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus also taught forgiveness, which he showed with his coversation with the adulterous woman.

Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 18 days ago with 276 member flags

The Devil\'s Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave
  Posted 3 days ago with 154 member flags

The Coca Cola Conspiracy: The secret cause for the U.S. obesity epidemic
  Posted 14 days ago with 139 member flags

Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 14 days ago with 122 member flags

Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 18 days ago with 96 member flags

The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 16 days ago with 85 member flags

Bank of America DOES NOT accept U.S. DOLLARS as payment on mortgages
  Posted 7 days ago with 85 member flags

Denver Airport Allows Camera Crew in Underground Facility
  Posted 16 days ago with 83 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: