It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Dawkins backs atheist camp to give children 'godless alternative'

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by seanizle
 




You BELIEVE there is no god

There is a difference in BELIEVING there is no god, and lacking belief in god. Both of those would make you an atheist.





to claim they flat out do not exist is idiotic

yep, most will agree. but it is also idiotic to believe in them them when they cant be found anywhere but in your imagination.





I really do not understand atheism

That is because you are ignorant. Learn about it.



Question: If yahweh made us, why did he make me an atheist?




posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I think that children should be exposed to all faiths, including the idea of atheism, and then allowed to make their own choices regarding the subject. My daughter was allowed to make her own choices, and although they do not coincide with mine, I support her right to believe as she wishes in this matter. The problem I see with this camp is that it only endorses atheism, thus making it no better than the Christian Camps mentioned above. Of course, I went to Catholic summer camp, and besides attending Mass every Sunday, it wasn't really religious at all. So if this camp just avoids spiritual (or lack thereof) matters, then it seems perfectly fine.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by JaxonRoberts]


We all start out Atheist do we not? So there really is no reason to teach atheism. What we see now is sort of a deprogramming effort by Atheist's.

If we were to go door to door like Christians do, the tracts Atheist's would pass out should be blank. If you are an atheist and you have read Dawkins books, and if you are honest, you already know Dawkins has issues with the religious. For instance: When I see people like you moocowoman, saying things like you do and seeing your statement in your sig, I think it is more accurate to say that about people.

You can say I don't hate people I just hate some of the things they do. But that isn't really what you're about is it moocowoman? Seems to me you are more about being a person claiming to be an atheist but one with an axe to grind and hopefully it is justifiably so but like most Atheist's having to always preface their replys with "as an Atheist I think blah blah blah" while they answer what an "xian" means as a shorter version of Christian. What? are we that lazy you can't spell anymore? Are they really called EX-CHIANS? Or is it "Zians" as Xerox is pronounced Zerox, or is it really we just want to piss them off?

I read some post where people have said they are sick of Christians shoving bibles down there throats and seem extremely hostile about it on these boards. They claim and swear by there atheism because of this.

My question is: how much did you sue the Christian for?

2) Did you call the police?

3) Did they catch the filthy Christian who violated your throat with that bible?

Then there are those that have seen Christianity as such a threat to society that to raise there children teaching it is tantamount to child abuse thereby accusing the Christians on these boards of Child abuse.

I don't know about you but if someone were to call me a child abuser on these boards, I would take that pretty personal in fact I would take that as a personal attack whether the Mods here seem to allow it or not, I would thijnk anyone making such a serious alegation would substantiate their accusation and back it up with what I've seen many Atehists insist Christians provide.

PROOF.

My question is for such a serious alegation to be made to them or about them certainly, if you really believe that as dawkins says he does in his book, you have not wanted to feel complicit in that alegation proving your moral compass is just as good or correct as a Christians, you did the right thing and called the police or child protective services whenever you have made such a comment, can you prove it with the police report?

Can you share with us testimony you gave in court to assist in CPS saving those kids from said child abuse as dawkins calls it.

They said it wasn't against the law? Then why make the charge? Why say it is child abuse when you are unwilling to do a damn thing about it. At least Christians who believe it is legal to get an abortion but still morally wrong, are consistent enough to picket abortion clinics and some are so convinced the doctors are killing fetus's that are actual human beings with human rights to defend, they shoot the doctors! Crazy? Yes! Proves they actually believe abortion is wrong YES AGAIN.

This explains why so many Atheists picket Christians houses marching with signs naming names of those Christians abusing their children.

The fact they call this an "atheist" camp is rather interesting, why can't dawkins support Christian summer camp? Now THAT would have me making a thread about it. This isn't news and it is what I expect Dawkins to do is support things that advance Atheism as a competition of two religions, his Atheism over the Christians. Does this camp allow Christians kids to attend and if so why? Not that they should bar Christians from going but I would ask why just to settle my suspicions that this new atheism insn't really Atheism at all but a bunch of disgruntled angry ex-christians or throat victims of Bible shovers or survivors of adult children of bible abuse who have hijacked the title of Atheist and turned it into a religion consisting of a bunch of angry crybaby's with an axe to grind who do things like this, announce things like this, support things like this, have sigs like that and create threads like this, just to piss people off and it doesn't take one of the science community to figure out just who those people are.

I may start believing in God just to keep from finding what Atheists do even harder to believe THEY do, not to mention the asinine reasons for it.

Dawkins Thanks for making Atheism so much like everything we have always hated about religions that it won't suprise me Christians start sueing and winning suggesting Atheism is a violation of church and state. In America, you don't have to have a God to be a religion, and you don't have to support a camp for just Atheists when its those abused children of Christianity that need help so I assume he is "a-preaching" his "a-theism" to piss off the parents otherwise he would be calling the police or picketing. Either way

I can be honest enough to see right through this so called "camp" and right through the OP intent for doing just what Dawkins would have hoped for.


Pissing people off



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem



You BELIEVE there is no god

There is a difference in BELIEVING there is no god, and lacking belief in god. Both of those would make you an atheist.





to claim they flat out do not exist is idiotic

yep, most will agree. but it is also idiotic to believe in them them when they cant be found anywhere but in your imagination.





I really do not understand atheism

That is because you are ignorant. Learn about it.



Question: If yahweh made us, why did he make me an atheist?


Why do you even consider asking such a question? Especially to a person who believes in God? WHY? Ignorant ? Ignorant ABOUT WHAT?

Learn about it? You mean their is a book that teaches about it? You think it is a BELIEF SYSTEM? Why would anyone have to learn about something they don't already NOT believe in? No You are ignorant

Stupid Argument #1: The etymology of the word "atheism" means "a lack of belief".



A commonly repeated error is that the word "atheism" was derived from the prefix "a-", meaning "without", and the word "theism", meaning a belief in God. Therefore they claim that "atheism" means "without a belief in God". This is incorrect because the etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless". The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief", was added later. The etymology of the word means "godless belief" not "without a belief in gods".



However, I find it impossible to believe that anyone with half a brain would use this argument. The English language is literally filled with many common examples of raising. I'll post a few for clarity:



A) "I don't believe the mail has arrived" means "I believe the mail has not arrived". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the mail arriving.



B) "I do not believe we missed the last bus" means "I believe we did not miss the last bus". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last bus.



C) "I don't think the kicker can make a 55 yard field goal" means "I think that the kicker can not make a 55 yard field goal". It does not mean that I did not think about the kicker making a field goal.



D) "I don't believe in the existence of deities" means "I believe that deities do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of deities.

I can only see ONE reason for you to say the things you have said and again it is to piss people off and unless you got a better REASON that doesn't have an "excuse" I would want to ask you why? What possible REASON do you have for asking why would God create an atheist when you don't even believe in God or do you and you're just angry at him and trying to confuse other believers in him just to get back at him?

Seriously, are you REALLY an Atheist or just another hijacking the name and really just another pissed off ex-christian or anti-christian antagonist.

True Atheist's don't make a mission of this sort of thing but looking at your posts, you do, which tells me you got a lot more going on here than simply not believing in something. You got an axe to grind about belief in myths? why are you not yanking off the beards of santa clauses saying SEE KIDS! HE IS FAKE! That way they won't be abused by their belief in such fairytales. I don't believe in UFO's because I have never seen anything flying that I couldn't identify but you won't see me arguing with a bunch of people who claim they have seen them. I mean really who would i think I am to call them nuts. What would it say about me?



[edit on 29-6-2009 by DASFEX]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 



If yahweh made us, why did he make me an atheist?

He didn't make you atheist. If you went back far enough, and you were honest with yourself, there was a point where you inherently believed in God. You later chose, since we all have free-will, to "believe" that there is no God.

Yahweh does this, instead of forcing everyone to believe that he's existent, because he much rather have someone that's chosen to worship him than a bunch of mindless robots.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Idk man I went to a non-religious camp when I was a kid: it was called "summer camp" and everybody climbed rocks and went on hikes.
The idea that atheism is not treated a religion itself with its own agendas and close-minded "believers" is just as ignorant as any other theology taken by blind faith.
"Philosophy without religion is mental speculation whereas religion without philosophy is fanaticism."
-lord krshna, bhagavad-gita.
Peace!



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by theyreadmymind


activities for campers include a competition to disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn – with the winner receiving a £10 note on which Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, has signed his name.


Now how is anybody going to be able to disprove the existence of the unicorn? That is just teaching kids bad logic if there is actually to be a "winner".


Hmm. Does thinking not come very naturally to you? Is it a struggle?

I'm playing but the quiz is obviously metaphorical, the Unicorn can be directly compared to god, here. This is the point.

I can understand if you are saying that you cannot prove a negative, though that has become something of a catchphrase and it isn't strictly true. You can prove that the Unicorn is all heresay and fantasy and in the same way, you should be able to use the same criteria to show that god is little more than the invention of creative human minds.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Matteo
 


This is one of the most backwards thing I have ever heard. Children are indoctrinated into religion by the millions every day. Yet you claim that giving an alternative is the closed minded way to go.

Reeks to me of someone of the mindset that their truth is the only truth.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Matteo
 


Matteo. Are you Roman Catholic, by any chance? Are you Italian?

I ask respectfully and without any agenda. It is just that I have spent much time in Italy (specifically Cosenza but also Roma and Firenze). I lived with an Italian girlfriend and her lovely parents for some time in Cosenza and travelled around Calabria.

Your thinking on this subject seems to me very typical of the Italian, Catholic mindset.

If I am right and you are Italian. Do you think this may be something of a proof that Roman Catholicism isn't in any way independent and it has been drummed into it's followers in a very rigid way, making them all think the same and act the same?

To me, it almost looks like propagandist brain washing. The kind of thing that is most familiarly known in religious cults.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts, amico.


EDIT: Matteo's next post...

Originally posted by Matteo

I am Catholic, I live in Italy...


Hmmm. Interesting!

Of course, your name also suggests your ethnicity. How can you not think of Italy when seeing the name "Matteo"? As the great Roberto Di Matteo springs immediately to mind!





Here he is with another of your brilliant country men!
Such a shame they chose to play for one of the most abhorrent English Premier League teams



[edit on 29-6-2009 by triplesod]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I want to take issue with the idea that children believe whatever adults tell them. I was brought up christian, but I never believed what I was told. Age 6 I asked my parents to stop sending me to sunday school (bible class). Every week it was a different story, "Jesus said [insert quote]"; every week it was the same message, "Do as you're told." Why? "Because Jesus is the son of God." I didn't have the knowledge to say 'non sequitur' but it seems I did have a fully functioning arse-talking-out-of detector. It hadn't escaped my notice that the adults I knew paid little if any attention to the lessons I was being expected to take in either. Again, I didn't know the word 'hypocrisy' but recognised something wasn't right.
I also didn't believe that when 2 balls are dropped from the same height, they hit the ground @the same time. I was sure that the heavier must fall faster. A teacher showed us the experiment. I was amazed. From that a belief in the theory of gravity began to coalesce, but it wasn't until much later when I learned about density, surface area, terminal velocity & aerodynamics that I really fully believed.
Give a child some info & ask them about it later, they will spout it back. Only when it has the context of experience or further info does belief begin. For that reason I like the sound of this camp. It seems that being taught how to think was never a big part of ordinary education & from what I hear from my partner who is a teacher, it's even more about cramming info than ever these days. If a few kids get the benefit of critical thinking, that's a few more than we're getting now.
Btw, I'm no longer an atheist, but not a member of any religion either.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
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.


Where was this person dictating to you moocowman? Seems to me all he is guilty of is having you "pegged" because right after you snap at him for dictating to you what you believe or not believe, you follow up saying exactly what you are, and ironically it was just as he suggested you are.

Oh I meant "dictated" you be.

See the difference? Someone dictating is instructing you be what they tell you to be and he wasn't telling to to not believe in God, he was telling you what you he understood you to be. An unbeliever or is it dis believer? Perhaps even an ex-believer with the attitude you got snapping to judgments and conclusions in accusatory anger, at least admit he was right about you. Your sig is all I needed to know to be just as presumptuous as the person you're yelling at and I would have guessed right just like the person you're yelling at for dictating what you have given in your sig as our first clue.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
reply to post by Matteo
 


This is one of the most backwards thing I have ever heard. Children are indoctrinated into religion by the millions every day. Yet you claim that giving an alternative is the closed minded way to go.

Reeks to me of someone of the mindset that their truth is the only truth.


That is because Mateo sees through all this as not really about showing unbelief has value over belief in the same way as saying knowlege of something is better than having none at all. If Atheism is no belief at all and you are teaching it to children, what exactly are you teaching? Mateo isn't buying that idea anymore than I would. They are going to teach their version of what they think is critical thinking so they can get more to disbelieve in God. They are no better than any zealot passing out tracts and yes that would be just as closed minded especially if they were wrong. You see if in fact one religion out there IS correct and it is the only one that is, then it was those who suggested we be open minded to all things that wasted so much time. People who think they have the truth don't keep looking for it after they found it and just because we don't believe theirs is the truth doesn't mean they are wrong for being closed minded. I don't tell people looking both ways before crossing the street is something their parents indoctrinated them with so it is automatically wrong. Not in some cases and many we have no business casting aspersions on,



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mooseinhisglory
Idk man I went to a non-religious camp when I was a kid: it was called "summer camp" and everybody climbed rocks and went on hikes.
The idea that atheism is not treated a religion itself with its own agendas and close-minded "believers" is just as ignorant as any other theology taken by blind faith.
"Philosophy without religion is mental speculation whereas religion without philosophy is fanaticism."
-lord krshna, bhagavad-gita.
Peace!


Yeah exactly! they didn't call it anything but "SUMMER camp" and they told ghost story and taught how to string a rod and reel bait a hook, start a camp fire, and how to put one out correctly. How to recognize poison oak from poison ivy and their was no agenda to teach anti teachings of other philosophys or religions because that was not summer camp.

That would be some other kind of camp like "A-camp"


[edit on 29-6-2009 by DASFEX]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
It shouldn't really affect the kids, when they become adults they will search the truth out for themselves. Look at Madelyn Murray Ohare, the Queen of the Athiest People (my, and wasn't she a lovely thing *choke, gag*), her son, the one she used as bait to get prayer taken from public schools, HE grew up to be full-fledged Christian.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienesque

Originally posted by Amagnon

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



nope..hes an atheist..

if you think theres a 50/50 chance of there being a god..then you are agnostic..id love to know your reasons however for thinking that way...


Wrong. This is a Dawkins construction of putting atheism/agnosticism/theism on a sliding scale of belief or probability. That is simply not how it works. You don't just go around changing definitions to make your belief sound the most credible.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
You can't believe in no god. You either believe in a god, or you don't believe in a god. Those of christian faith wouldn't say that they believe that Thor did not exist, they simply don't believe in Thor.

Atheism is the absence of belief, not the belief of absence.

Oh, and Mother Teresa was a horrible woman who subjugated women, made money on the backs of the sick and poor and laundered money for her own person gain.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by triplesod

Originally posted by theyreadmymind


activities for campers include a competition to disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn – with the winner receiving a £10 note on which Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, has signed his name.


Now how is anybody going to be able to disprove the existence of the unicorn? That is just teaching kids bad logic if there is actually to be a "winner".


Hmm. Does thinking not come very naturally to you? Is it a struggle?

I'm playing but the quiz is obviously metaphorical, the Unicorn can be directly compared to god, here. This is the point.

I can understand if you are saying that you cannot prove a negative, though that has become something of a catchphrase and it isn't strictly true. You can prove that the Unicorn is all heresay and fantasy and in the same way, you should be able to use the same criteria to show that god is little more than the invention of creative human minds.


This is exactly the sort of thinking we shouldn't be teaching to children. You're making quite imaginative leaps here. Showing that something is "hearsay" doesn't mean it's fantasy. Maybe you told me you went to the store yesterday (nobody saw you) and that is just hearsay to the rest of us so I guess it is just a fantasy? Let's see you prove the unicorn doesn't exist. The most basic definition I'm sure we can all agree on is a creature with a horn that at some time was called a "unicorn". Let's see you prove that doesn't exist. Prove that it is just the invention of creative human minds.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
You can't believe in no god. You either believe in a god, or you don't believe in a god. Those of christian faith wouldn't say that they believe that Thor did not exist, they simply don't believe in Thor.

Atheism is the absence of belief, not the belief of absence.

Oh, and Mother Teresa was a horrible woman who subjugated women, made money on the backs of the sick and poor and laundered money for her own person gain.


What does mother teresa have to do with this? and how does one make money on the backs of those who haven't any money?

and who are you correcting when you say: "Atheism is the absence of belief, not the belief of absence." Who said it was the belief of absence? What the heck is that? If something or someone is absent, you have to believe it to recognize it or they are in fact absent. Do you not?



[edit on 29-6-2009 by DASFEX]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by theyreadmymind

Originally posted by triplesod

Originally posted by theyreadmymind


activities for campers include a competition to disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn – with the winner receiving a £10 note on which Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, has signed his name.


Now how is anybody going to be able to disprove the existence of the unicorn? That is just teaching kids bad logic if there is actually to be a "winner".


Hmm. Does thinking not come very naturally to you? Is it a struggle?

I'm playing but the quiz is obviously metaphorical, the Unicorn can be directly compared to god, here. This is the point.

I can understand if you are saying that you cannot prove a negative, though that has become something of a catchphrase and it isn't strictly true. You can prove that the Unicorn is all heresay and fantasy and in the same way, you should be able to use the same criteria to show that god is little more than the invention of creative human minds.


This is exactly the sort of thinking we shouldn't be teaching to children. You're making quite imaginative leaps here. Showing that something is "hearsay" doesn't mean it's fantasy. Maybe you told me you went to the store yesterday (nobody saw you) and that is just hearsay to the rest of us so I guess it is just a fantasy? Let's see you prove the unicorn doesn't exist. The most basic definition I'm sure we can all agree on is a creature with a horn that at some time was called a "unicorn". Let's see you prove that doesn't exist. Prove that it is just the invention of creative human minds.


This is why we are to assume one is innocent till proven guilty so that we don't end up having people prove they didn't commit the crime they are accused of. How does one prove they couldn't have possibly robbed the bank? How does one prove their couldn't possibly be a God. Many things once thought impossible are now possible. It has always been those making the claims things that are impossible are in fact possible afterall.

Is it POSSIBLE their could be a God? A pragmatic Atheist who knows what it means would say it's possible but not very likely. Which is all one needs for reasonable doubt but not their there is not a God, but that their could be. Proving it is now up to the one suggesting there is.

Is that what you are saying?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Daniem
 



If you went back far enough, and you were honest with yourself, there was a point where you inherently believed in God.


Why would you even say something so retarded? There have never been a point where i thought ANY gods existed. Ive heard about many, many supernatural creatures, but to acctually think one or more of them were real, is just abusurd of you to imply. Why would you say that? You dont know what i thought. There's nothing supernatural about reality to me, its all just natural, and unknown. But we'll find out...


Before i even heard about gods etc as a kid i never gave it a thought, i was effectivly an atheist. i had no reason to think there was a higher power.

After i heard about the gods i never thought WELL THAT ONE'S obviously more believable. I just thought, WHY? why do people think all these things are real? They arent here for crying out loud.

I checked. I looked. I asked. But i never found any gods. No voices, no sightings, nothing. So for me to pick one to worship and believe in seem pretty dumb now dont it? "NOT IF YOU PICK MY GOD" some say?




[edit on 29-6-2009 by Daniem]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
you know what's hilarious is that Atheism is not only organized (Somewhat apparently) but it's also a BELIEF. It's still a belief referring to a (or lack thereof) deity. So they still are employing the belief sectors of the brain...good going anti-goddies, you're using god!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join