Dawkins' Athiest Camp for kids

[chris_com283]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8172844.stm

Some areas of it seem weird. It's good how he's trying to create an alternative to Jesus camps. Though he says that kids shouldn't be involved with religion. Although atheism isn't a religion it's still a religious belief. I'm still waiting for the bus campaign to hit Bristol. Has it already been and gone.

[miracles]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8172844.stm

Some areas of it seem weird. It's good how he's trying to create an alternative to Jesus camps. Though he says that kids shouldn't be involved with religion. Although atheism isn't a religion it's still a religious belief. I'm still waiting for the bus campaign to hit Bristol. Has it already been and gone.

Huh?

[chris_com283]

Maybe I worded that incorrectly. He dislikes kids being brought up into a religion, though he seems to think it's ok to raise kids with a belief system such as atheism. Different articles say different things about the camp, though I think it's worth further investigation. The atheist bus campaign got quite a bit of attention here. I wonder if there's much to say about this.

[lord tek]

Maybe I worded that incorrectly. He dislikes kids being brought up into a religion, though he seems to think it's ok to raise kids with a belief system such as atheism. Different articles say different things about the camp, though I think it's worth further investigation. The atheist bus campaign got quite a bit of attention here. I wonder if there's much to say about this.

Atheism is a huge umbrella, much like theism - and not a lot of people realize that....

[miracles]

Maybe I worded that incorrectly. He dislikes kids being brought up into a religion, though he seems to think it's ok to raise kids with a belief system such as atheism. Different articles say different things about the camp, though I think it's worth further investigation. The atheist bus campaign got quite a bit of attention here. I wonder if there's much to say about this.

It depends how young the kids are, they are going to have to deal with this stuff in school eventually. Im against youngsters being indoctrinated into anything.

Dawkins is an agent of the illuminati, a front man for athiesm, the new darwin, he has to do what he is told. And these people are all about brain washing the youth, the younger you get them the better. Im not at all surprised by this.

What is the the Jesuit maxim "Give me a child for his first seven years and I'll give you the man"

[geolaureate8]

Richard Dawkins is awesome. Despite his rigid standard of evidence, he's always there to keep you up to rational standards.

.

[crocoduck]

Richard Dawkins is awesome. Despite his rigid standard of evidence, he's always there to keep you up to rational standards.

.

The last sentence doesn't make any sense. How could keeping to rational standards be "despite" rigid standards of evidence? The two go hand in hand.

[fallensoul]

Any belief system not thought out by the individual themselves, rather handed to them is poison. It kills the sense of individuality, makes people into sheep who belong into different herds.

All I would teach to my kids is to uphold, justice, respect, freedom and peace. But if there is no option I would tell them to fight for their RIGHTS, turning the other cheek or praying to Jesus will not stop the bullet, you might dodge it once if you get lucky tho :P

Been taught that there is no god is still detrimental, it doesn't matter wether god exist or not, the way people come to realize their own path is the most important thing.

[shane]

I would definately class athieism as just another religion. Brainwashing kids with this stuff is no better than shoving Christianity, Judaism or Islam down their throats.

[crocoduck]

All I would teach to my kids is to uphold, justice, respect, freedom and peace.


Not truth? Pretty revealing. That must be how you got this weird "atheism is just another religion" belief.

[fallensoul]

Not truth? Pretty revealing. That must be how you got this weird "atheism is just another religion" belief.

Reveals what? How do you uphold truth without having these values strong in you first? If you live by these values you will uphold truth. Truth is so debatable tho, it's not absolute, thats why I didn't want to group it with other absolute values.

Edit also I don't mind atheism, nothing wrong in it, but if you decide to become Atheist I think its everyones job to research the information available and if thats what they arrive into (atheism) then thats their decision. But TEACHING it, they will not properly understand where their beliefs come from, is this hard to see? I doubt this camp can explore the whole human knowledge in order to arrive to their conclusions. It is still a doctrine, no matter what you say.

[clachan]

I would NEVER send my kids[5 & 7 yrs old] to one of these camps,let them have a free mind to look at this amazing universe with open eyes and wonder how it could be.
This is how it was for me and if when i was a kid i were sent to such a camp i wouldn,t be on this forum today,my mind would have been made up for me.
I beleive "God" brought the universe into existence,and i decided that for myself.
Without this faith i think i would be worse person.
What exactly do these camps acheive ?

[rodin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8172844.stm

The oxygen of publicity this apparently trivial pursuit got from the Bolshevick Broadcasting Commissariat speaks volumes

2002 survey can't imagine it's become any more 'representative' since

http://www.rense.com/general38/brits.htm

[crocoduck]

Reveals what? How do you uphold truth without having these values strong in you first? If you live by these values you will uphold truth. Truth is so debatable tho, it's not absolute, thats why I didn't want to group it with other absolute values.

Edit also I don't mind atheism, nothing wrong in it, but if you decide to become Atheist I think its everyones job to research the information available and if thats what they arrive into (atheism) then thats their decision. But TEACHING it, they will not properly understand where their beliefs come from, is this hard to see? I doubt this camp can explore the whole human knowledge in order to arrive to their conclusions. It is still a doctrine, no matter what you say.

Well, it reveals that you don't seem to value truth.

You value truth independent of those other things (not necessarily without) because sometimes the truth isn't peaceful or loving. Lots of people claim to be peaceful and loving without valuing truth. Lots of people actually are peaceful and loving without valuing truth at all.

I'm pretty sure the only people calling Dawkins' camps "teaching atheism" are the press and not the actual people running them. I guess you just believe everything the press tells you, though. And there's no doctrine in atheism, it's just a description of people who don't believe in any deities.

[crocoduck]

Without this faith i think i would be worse person.


So is the only reason you're not robbing and killing because you believe in deities? That's not moral at all. It's just sucking up to some authority figure.

[size_of_light]

Richard Dawkins is awesome. Despite his rigid standard of evidence, he's always there to keep you up to rational standards.

.

Are you kidding? The guy's an absolute buffoon.

[angelthecat]

Richard Dawkins is awesome. Despite his rigid standard of evidence, he's always there to keep you up to rational standards.

.

I would suggest you could watch 100 reasons why evolution is stupid by: Ken Hovind although I dont agree with the totally religious argument he does make science look stupid, please dont take the time to knock before you investigate, so for one example is they date dinosaur fossils by the depth at which they are found in and they date the depth by the fossils they find? Science is a religion and you need to belive in it for it to be true :D
this link shows the colapse of dawinism
Death of evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goTcyUbny34&feature=related)

[crocoduck]

I would suggest you could watch 100 reasons why evolution is stupid by: Ken Hovind although I dont agree with the totally religious argument he does make science look stupid, please dont take the time to knock before you investigate, so for one example is they date dinosaur fossils by the depth at which they are found in and they date the depth by the fossils they find? Science is a religion and you need to belive in it for it to be true :D
this link shows the colapse of dawinism
Death of evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goTcyUbny34&feature=related)

Kent Hovind is an idiot. He uses arguments that even Answers in Genesis say shouldn't be used. And his son is even dumber - he just repeats the same garbage and adds "dude" every 30 seconds.

You don't need to believe in science for it to be true. That's what it means for something to be objectively true, that it is independent of beliefs.

[lady_oblivion]

LOL death of evolution sorry but that made me chuckle. Anyway back to the thread topic. Seems a little pointless tbh having an atheist camp for kids. I can see why other religions have camps to inforce the belief in there children but why atheism very pointless

[shane]

LOL death of evolution sorry but that made me chuckle. Anyway back to the thread topic. Seems a little pointless tbh having an atheist camp for kids. I can see why other religions have camps to inforce the belief in there children but why atheism very pointless


True. Reminds me of Andy Parsons' joke on Mock the Week about schools teaching atheism. "Good morning class. There is no God... Same time next week."

[angelthecat]

Kent Hovind is an idiot. He uses arguments that even Answers in Genesis say shouldn't be used. And his son is even dumber - he just repeats the same garbage and adds "dude" every 30 seconds.

You don't need to believe in science for it to be true. That's what it means for something to be objectively true, that it is independent of beliefs.

I dont totally disagree with what you say about his religous beliefs but his knocking of evolutionary science is right on the mark, as, there is no evidence at all to support it. Trilabites where one of the first creatures on earth,with no found intermedium species, yet it had one of the advanced type of eye, if evolution and selection where to be believed then it should have only be improved, lots of so called advanced mankind wear specticles to read let alone see great distance, the creature appeared from apparently nowhere, maybe you should check out Lloyd Pye he is also a creationist but from a different source. so whether you believe in a devine creator or alien intervention Darwin is no more than a massive hoax, that is just my opinion and there is no one who can debate me out of what i believe

[tannah]

I dont totally disagree with what you say about his religous beliefs but his knocking of evolutionary science is right on the mark, as, there is no evidence at all to support it. Trilabites where one of the first creatures on earth,with no found intermedium species, yet it had one of the advanced type of eye, if evolution and selection where to be believed then it should have only be improved, lots of so called advanced mankind wear specticles to read let alone see great distance, the creature appeared from apparently nowhere, maybe you should check out Lloyd Pye he is also a creationist but from a different source. so whether you believe in a devine creator or alien intervention Darwin is no more than a massive hoax, that is just my opinion and there is no one who can debate me out of what i believe


Not quite applicable to your arguement, but maybe interesting? Look out for AR Wallace and his evolutionary theory, which was more holistic and rejected in favour of Darwin's theory.



Foolish elites practise corruption theft, slavery and genocide, ignorantly asserting, against all logic, that Darwin's `Theory' of competing species could be applied to human individuals within a single species.

Motivated by selfishness and fear, they deviously claim this to be Social Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism.

Sad and cowardly media pundits, academics and even scientists - all depending on ruling elites for pay and tenure - pretend that "Survival Of The Fittest" could be compatible with a privileged elite who exclude themselves from evolution.

Example - "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins

Ironically, corrupt establishments claim to represent Law / Justice but, in most countries, rulers fear and hate honest or just laws.

All history proves the cowardice and stupidity of the elites' academics.

Here are just a few examples:-

Around 900 BCE runaway slaves and outlaws founded an egalitarian republic of Rome, which grew into an Empire. But eventually its effete aristocracy of estate-owners and `senators', perverted by usury and privilege, became so incompetent 200 that they were eventually ruled by incoming Celts, Teutons and Semites: their own former slaves. * note

Similarly the British Empire was won and run by Welsh, Scottish, Irish and native English (all sort-of Celts 201): former slaves, first of the Norman-French then of the Hanoverians. [UK has been 'ruled' by the House of Hanover and their increasingly incompetent descendants, under various names - since 1714. 202]

The next putative `Holy Roman Empire' - a world hegemony hoped-for by the USA's elite - would actually be maintained, then eventually ruled by descendants of African-Americans: a folk only recently enslaved, and still oppressed in North America and Europe, especially in England. 203


All living humans are descendants of landless refugees and slaves.
Anyone claiming racial purity or ancestral real estate is a fool,
or a lying politician. 204 & 205

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/genes2.html

[crocoduck]

I dont totally disagree with what you say about his religous beliefs but his knocking of evolutionary science is right on the mark, as, there is no evidence at all to support it. Trilabites where one of the first creatures on earth,with no found intermedium species, yet it had one of the advanced type of eye, if evolution and selection where to be believed then it should have only be improved, lots of so called advanced mankind wear specticles to read let alone see great distance, the creature appeared from apparently nowhere, maybe you should check out Lloyd Pye he is also a creationist but from a different source. so whether you believe in a devine creator or alien intervention Darwin is no more than a massive hoax, that is just my opinion and there is no one who can debate me out of what i believe

I didn't say anything about his religious beliefs. I was talking about his pseudoscientific claims. The evolution of the human eye has been very well documented. And our eyes aren't so incredibly impressive that they would have needed to have been designed. As you even point out, lots of people need to wear glasses. Also we can't see very well in the dark. The visible light part of the light spectrum is incredibly small. Et cetera...

That last line is disturbing. Are you saying that regardless of the evidence presented, you still could not change your mind? Doesn't that bother you? Don't you care if what you believe is true or not?