Atheist Summer Camp: A Rational Overview

[segovius]

The Atheist version of the Xian Summer Camp is now in full swing so perhaps in the great tradition of rational questioning and clear thinking we all subscribe to it might be good to look at it from a philosophical angle.

The question that strikes me is this: we all know Xian Fundie camps brainwash hapless kids into accepting things contrary to logic and that they do this through a form of indoctrination to varying degrees.

BUT is it the indoctrination itself that is 'wrong' or do quasi-brainwashing methods become 'right' depending on the nature of the content?

Put another way: is it ok to indoctrinate someone if the thing you are conditioning them to is 'true'? Or is all indoctrination wrong by definition?

Interesting to hear people's views...

Two other points re this camp...am I alone in finding the following disquieting:

The children are told to imagine that the camp is surrounded by unicorns which cannot be seen or touched, but which are there because there has to be 'faith' that they exist.

They are then encouraged to develop rational arguments to prove that the unicorns cannot and do not exist, with anyone who manages it awarded a prize - a £10 note signed by Richard Dawkins.

:?: :!: :?

And on a final Fortean note I cannot help but find the following hilarious but also I think, it is a vital lesson for - to borrow an unfashionable wisdom - "him who has ears to hear":

There is, however, one final irony. Camp Quest founder Edwin Kagin has a son who not only grew up to reject his father's philosophy, but has become a Born Again Christian minister.

 

[stu neville]

... is it the indoctrination itself that is 'wrong' or do quasi-brainwashing methods become 'right' depending on the nature of the content?

Put another way: is it ok to indoctrinate someone if the thing you are conditioning them to is 'true'? Or is all indoctrination wrong by definition?

Good points.

First of all, I'd tend to say that indoctrination of any hue is bad, implying as it does no truck with any other viewpoint or opinion. Now, when dealing with absolutes such a stance is possible, but in actual fact very few things are absolute, and in something as subjective as faith or belief it's (IMHO) an impossible stance to justify. All you can do with any certainty is state and discuss your own view. And this addresses the second point - the nature of truth itself is a potential minefield. Context and subjectivity conspire to make definitive truth an elusive beast.

So that's my opinion - indoctrination not good. Respectful, attentive and as objective as possible discussion is the way forward.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Before folks start getting their knickers in a twist about some 'atheist' summer camp, where no doubt attempts will be made to indoctrinate children with skepticism, doubt, reason and the use of logic, let's remind ourselves of the alternative.

Jesus Camp - The Movie:
http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/

Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE

Sample:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOIYsGVyg8M

 

[segovius]

... is it the indoctrination itself that is 'wrong' or do quasi-brainwashing methods become 'right' depending on the nature of the content?

Put another way: is it ok to indoctrinate someone if the thing you are conditioning them to is 'true'? Or is all indoctrination wrong by definition?

Good points.

First of all, I'd tend to say that indoctrination of any hue is bad, implying as it does no truck with any other viewpoint or opinion. Now, when dealing with absolutes such a stance is possible, but in actual fact very few things are absolute, and in something as subjective as faith or belief it's (IMHO) an impossible stance to justify. All you can do with any certainty is state and discuss your own view. And this addresses the second point - the nature of truth itself is a potential minefield. Context and subjectivity conspire to make definitive truth an elusive beast.

So that's my opinion - indoctrination not good. Respectful, attentive and as objective as possible discussion is the way forward.

Yes, that's my view too. Discussion is definitely the way forward.

I don't know so much about the Atheist camp but I have a degree of experience with the Xian ones.

If they really were objective and open to discussion and finding the truth then - imo - it should be possible to approach from the other angle. That is to say the Atheist camp could offer prizes for disproving Science or various rational postulates etc....

If the positions were valid they would not be able to be disproved and that would side-step the possibility of indoctrination.

Critical thinking is a stick with two ends...it seems sometimes that both camps ar only seeing the one end - proving their own position.

Why not try to disprove it? Is just as critical and will arrive at the truth just the same.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

What's this Segovius? No link to the original article?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...atheist-summer-camp-harmless-fun-worried.html

Retrieved from amongst the gratuitous, telephoto, paparazzi, pictures of celebrity cellulite, on the Daily Mail's 'Femail' pages.

:lol:

Let's see now, is there a qualitative difference between attempting to indoctrinate kids with the use of reason and their brains, on the one hand, or with unquestioning blind obedience and faith in an invisible Authority, on the other?

Is that a no-brainer, or should I think about it?

One atheist summer camp, in Britain, perhaps a handful, in the US and around the World, set against how many hundreds, if not thousands, of religiously oriented concurrents, pushing the, 'Don't think, just pray and obey!' alternative?

Still, perhaps one's all it needs, once the seeds of doubt are planted, eh?

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

 

[river_styx]

Just because you can't see or touch something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Surely the open minded approach would be to prove why the unicorns do or don't exist and hold your theory up to scrutiny.

 

[segovius]

Just because you can't see or touch something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Surely the open minded approach would be to prove why the unicorns do or don't exist and hold your theory up to scrutiny.

Yes, exactly.

And more than that...what is 'existing' anyway? They never seem to address this stuff. Maybe philosophy and metaphysics is a little too close to the 'supernatural' than is comfortable.

Anyway, we should help them there. We could do a kind of update on Schrödinger's cat - but with Dawkins in the central role (a role he is used to playing after all) - just for topicality. Something like:

If RD is not present at the Atheist Camp does he actually exist or is he in an intermediate state until he turns up to sign the £10 note?

Got to be better than Unicorns.....

 

[ramonmercado]

I prefer unicorns, their existence is more credible than transubstantiation. If the wafer turns into the actual body and blood of JC then it should be possible to analyse the wafer. If its composed of human tissue, ectoplasm or some mysterious substance then transubstantiation works. If its only bread then transubstantiation is a fraud.

As for the camp, as has been pointed out, there are a handful of such camps world wide. While thousands of religious camps exist.

If people have genuine concerns about children being subject to propaganda then perhaps they should worry about the religious beam rather than the mote in Dawkins eye.

 

[segovius]

I prefer unicorns, their existence is more credible than transubstantiation. If the wafer turns into the actual body and blood of JC then it should be possible to analyse the wafer. If its composed of human tissue, ectoplasm or some mysterious substance then transubstantiation works. If its only bread then transubstantiation is a fraud.

As for the camp, as has been pointed out, there are a handful of such camps world wide. While thousands of religious camps exist.

If people have genuine concerns about children being subject to propaganda then perhaps they should worry about the religious beam rather than the mote in Dawkins eye.

True...but my argument is that only an idiot would take such things literally.

I do not believe in Unicorns but that does not mean I do not think someone has seen one. Why not? I'm sure people have seen many as well as leprachauns, elves and burning bushes.

The question is really: what is going on?

The atheist answer that "nothing is going on because they don't exist" seems as useless and stupid to me as the answer "unicorns are real".

 

[ramonmercado]

True...but my argument is that only an idiot would take such things literally.

But to be a Roman Catholic you have to take transubstantiation literally. Its the main thing that seperates RCs from Anglicans.

The atheist answer that "nothing is going on because they don't exist" seems as useless and stupid to me as the answer "unicorns are real".

You are setting up a man of straw there.

Of course atheists accept that things go on which they do not understand. Its happening at the quantum level all of the time.

I don't just dismiss "ghosts" or other "supernatural" phenomena. Its quite possible that there is an explanation for sightings noises etc. One that has yet to be discovered or understood.

As for unicorns: well it now seems unlikely that any unicorns will be discovered. But I still haven't given up on the Yeti, Big Foot or the Yeren. Theres a lot of Wilderness out there.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

True...but my argument is that only an idiot would take such things literally.

...

Are you suggesting that people with firm religious beliefs are idiots? Or, that people who believe in A God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, a Heaven, a Hell, Angels and Demons, don't really believe in it at all, that it's all a game and are merely playing with metaphor and metaphysics, on some level?

Children are being asked to believe in total BS ever day, commanded not only to believe in it, but to accept it uncritically and dedicate their short lives to it.

Taliban Summer Camp?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/07/pakistan.child.bombers/index.html

If you see a unicorn on the road, hang it up by its nadgers.

 

[ramonmercado]

If you see a unicorn on the road, hang it up by its nadgers.

Sadly its horn will probably be impaling a roadkill badger.

 

[segovius]

Are you suggesting that people with firm religious beliefs are idiots?

I'm suggesting that one definition of idiocy is mistaking the figurative for the literal and giving equal weight to things that are impossible and things that are proven facts.

Or, that people who believe in A God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, a Heaven, a Hell, Angels and Demons, don't really believe in it at all, that it's all a game and are merely playing with metaphor and metaphysics, on some level?

I would argue that areas of faith - ie religion - are by definition highly reliant on the figurative because the numinous cannot be explained in a rational way.

If we accept this - even for argument's sake - then it follows that all attempts to literalize it must be incorrect.

For example: in relation to transubstantiation mentioned above; this belief comes SOLELY from the occasion where Christ is alleged to have said "Take, eat; this is my body...." in Matthew 26:26.

Again, accepting for argument's sake that he existed and that he said this, there are two interpretations: literal and figurative.

The literal leads directly to the dogma and hellish nonsense Atheists so widely deride. The figurative i would suggest is the most reasonable meaning to be placed on Christ's words.

There are many other examples. Christ spent his entire career speaking in parables. The Qur'an is explicitly stated to have seven layers of meaning and to be metaphor in a large degree.

Children are being asked to believe in total BS ever day, commanded not only to believe in it, but to accept it uncritically and dedicate their short lives to it.

Not just children. And not all of it has to do with religion. Politics, advertising, news. ...everyone is force-fed BS from dawn to dusk every single day of their lives. Most of it they lap up, beg for more and kill you if you try to cut off the supply.

Taliban Summer Camp?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/07/pakistan.child.bombers/index.html

And the point is?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Taliban Summer Camp?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/07/pakistan.child.bombers/index.html

And the point is?

Compare and contrast these two arguments:

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

How many victims will fit in a body bag?

The point should be self evident, I would have thought. :hmm:

 

[segovius]

...

Taliban Summer Camp?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/07/pakistan.child.bombers/index.html

And the point is?

Compare and contrast these two arguments:

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

How many victims will fit in a body bag?

The point should be self evident, I would have thought. :hmm:

I'm afraid it isn't - pretend I'm stupid...

I don't see the point you're trying to make....I could hazard some guesses but probably better if you spell it out

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Who gives a flying monkey's fart, about questions surrounding 'Transubstantiation', except maybe believers? Even if this sort of nonsense does seem to be enough to send some of them off to kill for their beliefs.

Wandering off into some abstruse theological argument, whether literal, metaphorical, or metaphysical, it doesn't matter, means sod all. Real people get beaten, or shot, or blown to lumps of bloody meat, for this nonsense. That does matter.

Atheists have every right to to teach what they believe to be the truth. If you don't like it, don't blame them if they take what Believers profess to believe at face value and find it risible. You can't make it any the less risible by arguing points of theology, which only really make sense if you believe in them, in the first place.

One things for sure, in view of everything that's happened since '9/11', if believers really want to help, they should shut the f*ck up, about what others don't believe, or buy into. They have no right to demand that anybody believes this crap, any more, or gives them an easy time, in view of their delusions.

Ask John Lennon.

 

[segovius]

Who gives a flying monkey's fart, about questions surrounding 'Transubstantiation', except maybe believers? Even if it seems to be enough to send some of them off to kill for their beliefs.

Not you - and that's fine. Just accept that some people do and respect that and we'll be ok!

Wandering off into some abstruse theological argument, whether literal, metaphorical, or metaphysical, it doesn't matter, means sod all. Real people get beaten, or shot, or blown to lumps of bloody meat, for this nonsense. That does matter.

They get blown to bloody lumps of meat for all sorts of nonsense.

Today some body bags arrived from Iraq and there was a little parade. What nonsense did they die for...you want to go on the record?

Maybe they were all creationists. Maybe the Government that sent them there are Fundies.

Or maybe it's all ok because they are fighting religious nuttersand they are atheists.

Atheists have every right to to teach what they believe to be the truth.

Yep. Absolutely. Glad you said 'believe' too....our little chats are paying off!

If you don't like it, don't blame them if they take what Believers profess to believe at face value and find it risible.

I don't dislike it. I find many things risible. It's part of life's rich tapestry.

You can't make it any the less risible by arguing points of theology, which only really make sense if you believe in them, in the first place.

I think I said philosophy. Or do you think that's the same thing? Is it worth more or less?

One things for sure, in view of everything that's happened since '9/11', if believers really want to help, they should shut the f*ck up, about what others don't believe, or buy into. They have no right to demand that anybody believes this crap, any more, or gives them an easy time, in view of their delusions.

I don't see anyone doing much demanding....a lot of religious fundies and atheist fundies shouting the odds but they are not significant and there are clear reasons for their breast-beating.

Ask John Lennon.

Good idea...I did ...he said:

I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?

I told him I agreed and he said:

I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong.

You should listen to John a bit more maybe....

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

You should listen to John a bit more maybe....

Really?

A working class hero is something to be.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV, ?

Or, how about:

God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I'll say it again,
God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I don't believe in magic,
I don't believe in I-ching,
I don't believe in bible,
I don't believe in tarot,
I don't believe in Hitler,
I don't believe in Jesus,
I don't believe in Kennedy,
I don't believe in Buddha,
I don't believe in mantra,
I don't believe in Gita,
I don't believe in yoga,
I don't believe in kings,
I don't believe in Elvis,
I don't believe in Zimmerman,
I don't believe in Beatles,
I just believe in me,
Yoko and me,
And that's reality.
The dream is over,
What can I say?
The dream is over,
Yesterday,
I was dreamweaver,
But now I'm reborn,
I was the walrus,
But now I'm John,
And so dear friends,
You just have to carry on,
The dream is over.

 

[coaly]

philosophy, armchair reasoning. theology, blind acceptance, humanism, celebration of truth and beauty of nature with and without imagination, in healthy and equal levels. each to their own. if some school of thought is damaging then it should be addressed and rectified for alls sake. if however it isnt, then it should be tolerated and accepted. personally i believe we all are a rich melting pot of diversity and that is what makes us human. if we argue about our beliefs then we arent sure of them. im a humanist and i am tolerant as i am with religion as i am with musical tastes. just because some music makes me feel ill i dont protest and join groups which are anti this or that. i just dont buy it or prefer to listen to it. if the music harmed however, id protect my family and friends from it. crap anology i know but what im trying to say is stop arguing please and getting personal. have a really decent day and be good.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Can I just say that watching people claim John Lennon (I'm not a big fan) to be in accordance with their view of the world I know how an atheist in 16th century Europe must have felt.

Although maybe a little less burned.

 

[segovius]

Can I just say that watching people claim John Lennon (I'm not a big fan) to be in accordance with their view of the world I know how an atheist in 16th century Europe must have felt.

Although maybe a little less burned.

Just quoting, no claims, just quoting....

But i don't think you know how that would feel really though do you? Mot really, really

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Can I just say that watching people claim John Lennon (I'm not a big fan) to be in accordance with their view of the world I know how an atheist in 16th century Europe must have felt.

Although maybe a little less burned.

Just quoting, no claims, just quoting....

But i don't think you know how that would feel really though do you? Mot really, really

I'm mot really sure what you would mean.

 

[segovius]

Can I just say that watching people claim John Lennon (I'm not a big fan) to be in accordance with their view of the world I know how an atheist in 16th century Europe must have felt.

Although maybe a little less burned.

Just quoting, no claims, just quoting....

But i don't think you know how that would feel really though do you? Mot really, really

I'm mot really sure what you would mean.

heehe....not quite mastered the bon mot there have I? too much Margaux maybe hahah

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

heehe....not quite mastered the bon mot there have I? too much Margaux maybe hahah

Well without Margaux there's no Good Life. That's the trouble with humour, though - it's not meant to be taken literally. John Lennon - himself bigger than Jesus - probably knows how a throwaway quip can be misinterpreted better than most.

Likewise much of what we 'know' about Camp Quest. It does seems that there's a few myths about it, the Dawkins tenner being one of them:

"The signed £10 note was donated by Samantha Stein."

 

[segovius]

heehe....not quite mastered the bon mot there have I? too much Margaux maybe hahah

Well without Margaux there's no Good Life. That's the trouble with humour, though - it's not meant to be taken literally. John Lennon - himself bigger than Jesus - probably knows how a throwaway quip can be misinterpreted better than most.

Likewise much of what we 'know' about Camp Quest. It does seems that there's a few myths about it, the Dawkins tenner being one of them:

"The signed £10 note was donated by Samantha Stein."

Yes...a lesson there for us all.

I knew I should never have quoted the Daily Mail....

 

[Quake42]

Before folks start getting their knickers in a twist about some 'atheist' summer camp, where no doubt attempts will be made to indoctrinate children with skepticism, doubt, reason and the use of logic, let's remind ourselves of the alternative.

Why is the "alternative" to freaky Dawkins brainwashing a session of freaky fundie Christian brainwashing? Why can't kids just spend their summers in time honoured fashion - being desperately bored and occasionally drinking cheap cider and smoking crap soapbar in the park?

Why are we even having "summer camps" anyway - dreadful American import, rather like "proms".

As for John Lennon, the best comment I read on this tiresome egomaniac was from Julie Burchill:

he swaddled himself in ("Imagine no . . .") possessions; at the height of their swinishness, the Ono-Lennons kept a whole apartment in the Dakota building, just below the one they lived in, for the exclusive occupation of their fur coats - just to keep them at the right temperature

Read the whole rant here... it's brilliant

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... johnlennon

 

[rynner2]

Why are we even having "summer camps" anyway - dreadful American import, rather like "proms".

If anything, you could say we Brits invented them. I'm thinking of Baden-Powell and the Scouts and Guides movements.

Back in the 60s, I went on a sailing camp for a fortnight. We lived in tents in a field, helping prepare and cook food, doing other chores, using earth latrines, etc... But we spent all day sailing, which was great! (And for a teenager like me who'd only been to boys schools, there was the mystery of living alongside - er - girls! :madeyes: )

That camp probably made me the man I am today...

...a mental and physical wreck!

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

If anything, you could say we Brits invented them. I'm thinking of Baden-Powell and the Scouts and Guides movements.

Indeed - the Boys' Brigade were going on summer camps as early as the 1880's.

 

[river_styx]

And those put in charge have been molesting them ever since.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

And those put in charge have been molesting them ever since.

Hmm, that's quite a claim. In fact fostering the notion that child abuse is a major problem within such organisations is probably responsible for more damage to children and society than a whole battalion of nonces in odd uniforms could ever muster.