Richard Dawkins funds atheist summer camp (aimed at changing the way children think)

The First Post ^ | 7/1/2009 | Rachel Helyer Donaldson

[SeekAndFind]

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, has helped launch an atheist summer camp for children. Alongside the more traditional activities of tug-of-war, swimming and canoeing, children at the five-day camp in Somerset will learn about rational scepticism, moral philosophy, ethics and evolution.

Camp-goers aged eight to 17 will also be taught how to disprove phenomena such as crop circles and telepathy. In the Invisible Unicorn Challenge, any child who can prove that unicorns do not exist will win a £10 note - which features an image of Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary theory - signed by Dawkins, Britain's most prominent atheist.

Dawkins is not personally involved in Camp Quest, which originated in the United States, but helped subsidise the cost of the camp through his Richard Dawkins Foundation. The former Oxford professor said Camp Quest provided children with a summer camp that was "free of religious dogma", unlike many adventure breaks which are run by the Scouts and faith-based groups. All 24 places at the camp, which runs from July 27 to 31, have already been filled and more camps are planned for next year, including Easter.

Camp Quest was founded in America in 1996 by Edwin Kagin, an atheist lawyer from Kentucky and the son of a church minister. The woman bringing the concept to Britain is a 23-year-old postgraduate psychology student from London, Samantha Stein, who was inspired to work at an atheist summer camp in America after reading The God Delusion.

Stein said the atheist adventure breaks were "not about changing what they think, but the way that they think. There is very little that attacks religion; we are not a rival to religious camps."

[SeekAndFind]

Oh, that's right, their atheism is based on their superior ethical sensibilities.

That again begs the question, by what law do we appeal to to determine whose moral values are superior or inferior if no authority ultimately gets to decide ?

[Blackacre]

Well that's obvious, isn't it? So, you think "victimless crimes" are unimportant?

Pretty much. I don't see the need to punish people for actions that do not harm others.

Of course not, since there's no "magical sky fairy," right?

I'm unconvinced of the existence of divine beings. Even if they do exist, I can't see the point of sacrificing animals to them.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Rationality (”the quality of being rational; reasonableness, or the posession or use of reason”) shows.

Shows how? To whom? Who decides what is ethical, rational, or reasonable?

You, perhaps? You'd better stay healthy.

[SeekAndFind]

Rationality (”the quality of being rational; reasonableness, or the posession or use of reason”) shows.

As per Dawkins, we are all but products of the accidental configuration of atoms, we are all going back the same way. RATONALLY then, accelerating what is inevitable seems to be the way to go. I am using REASON here by accepting the premise of Richard Dawkins and coming up with this conclusion.

[Zionist Conspirator]

And you're a "conservative" because . . . you have money printing ink in your veins?

Where are all you noobs coming from?

[SeekAndFind]

I'm unconvinced of the existence of divine beings.

That is your prerogative... I will then have to assume that you are also unconvinced that there really isn't REAL good or evil -- just personal preference.

[Blackacre]

Let's say that Hitler won the second world war, would gassing Jews be considered evil ?

Depends. If the Nazis conquered the world and were able to basically brainwash everyone into their ideology, then gassing Jews wouldn't be considered evil. But such an outcome was never really within the realm of possibility.

[Zionist Conspirator]

That again begs the question, by what law do we appeal to to determine whose moral values are superior or inferior if no authority ultimately gets to decide?

For some reason that doesn't seem to matter (see our good "friend" Blackacre's posts).

[Blackacre]

And you're a "conservative" because . . . you have money printing ink in your veins?

I'm conservative because it's apparent that connservative policies tend to lead to better societal results.

[SeekAndFind]

If the Nazis conquered the world and were able to basically brainwash everyone into their ideology, then gassing Jews wouldn't be considered evil. But such an outcome was never really within the realm of possibility.

I gather from your response then that the answer is YES -- Nazis, if they could successfully do what they do are NOT intrinsically evil, just different.

[SeekAndFind]

I'm conservative because it's apparent that connservative policies tend to lead to better societal results.

You are again appealing to personal preference, not what is REALLY better.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I'm conservative because it's apparent that connservative policies tend to lead to better societal results.

A homosexual capitalist ain't the same thing as a conservative, son.

So, you decided to register with Free Republic just over a week ago because . . . ?

[Blackacre]

I gather from your response then that the answer is YES -- Nazis, if they could successfully do what they do are NOT intrinsically evil, just different.

Who judges what is considered intrinsically evil? You would say it is a divine being, but that explanation doesn't work for me since I don't believe in such beings. So, yes, if Nazis conquered the world and spent several generations brainwashing the rest of us, they could define what is and isn't intrinsically evil.

[SeekAndFind]

For some reason that doesn't seem to matter (see our good "friend" Blackacre's posts).

Blackacre simply refers to his personal preference to determine what is superior or inferior morality. But then this begs the question --- what makes him the ultimate moral authority ?

Why isn't Nancy Pelosi's personal preference superior to Blackacre's ?

[SeekAndFind]

Who judges what is considered intrinsically evil? You would say it is a divine being, but that explanation doesn't work for me since I don't believe in such beings.

OK, it does not work for you and you don't believe in God. Fine. As long as you agree that with this stance, there really is no "good" or "evil", just personal preferences, I have no further arguments with you.

You are simply different from Osama Bin Ladin, not superior or inferior morally.

[Blackacre]

A homosexual capitalist ain't the same thing as a conservative, son.

I suppose that would depend on the homosexual capitalist's views on other issues. Support for capitalism, in of itself, does not make one a conservative.

So, you decided to register with Free Republic just over a week ago because . . . ?

Because I'm a conservative.

[OldNavyVet]

Who decides what is ethical, rational, or reasonable?

People of reason.

[Zionist Conspirator]

For some reason that doesn't seem to matter (see our good "friend" Blackacre's posts).

Blackacre simply refers to his personal preference to determine what is superior or inferior morality. But then this begs the question --- what makes him the ultimate moral authority ?

Why isn't Nancy Pelosi's personal preference superior to Blackacre's?

Um, why are you asking me instead of him? Though I think his answer would be that his personal preference is more socially utilitarian than hers.

I know . . . who decides that? He does, apparently.

[SeekAndFind]

So, yes, if Nazis conquered the world and spent several generations brainwashing the rest of us, they could define what is and isn't intrinsically evil.

Take the word -- intrinsic -- out of the above statement and that would be a coherent statement. With your worldview, good and evil are what people define it to be. The people who have the strongest weapons DEFINE and IMPOSE what is good or evil.

Everything is relative. NO ACT is good or evil in itself.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Who decides what is ethical, rational, or reasonable?

People of reason.

And who decides who is a "person of reason?" "People of reason?"

You do realize what an awful jackass you're making of yourself arguing in a circle like this, don't you? It's no more respectable in an agnostic than in a Fundamentalist Baptist.