to ask if anyone has or would send their child to an atheist camp?

[Ihavewelliesbuttheyrenotgreen]

I am a Christian and have attended/volunteered on lots of Christian summner camps over the years. Mumsnet has opened my eyes a bit more to atheism and the choices that people face about religion etc when bringing up kids. Would anyone send their kids on one of these atheist camps and what would be your reasons?

I'm against any kind of oppression, by religious people ostensibly for reasons of religion, or by atheists/non-theists. Organised religion has always been didactic and dogmatic, whether that is allowed or not. Even religions that were persecuted, like the early Christian church, or the Catholic church in Ireland in the Penal days, were didactic and dogmatic. Organised religion teaches its beliefs as fact because it sincerely believes there is a god, or gods, or whatever it believes. God is the centre of the existence of most religions; their raison d'etre. Hence the preaching, teaching, organisation (the better to spread the word) etc.

Why would atheists want to tread the same well worn track that organised religion has already trodden anyway? The danger to atheism is that it will lose the mantle of freethinking. I do not see a danger to organised religion. If atheists are serious about their rejection of organised religion they should not seek to tell anyone what to think, surely? Since when have freethinkers put on the same hat as organised religion? Or are freethinkers and atheists different?

If this is an atheist camp, promoting atheism/scoffing at religion, or just promoting atheism, and not a camp where campers are to think freely and draw their own conclusions, then the aim of the camp has been mischaracterised. I think the line between freethinking and atheism is blithely assumed not to exist by CQ, but I believe there is a line and the IPU thing demonstrates by the fact of its insertion in the camp programme that this incarnation or outreach of atheism is just as didactic as any organised religion, no matter what conclusions the campers may reach on its existence.

If I were a scientist of faith I would be concerned that the approach of CQ would give credence to those who wish to do away with the teaching of evolution in schools.

If I were an atheist I would be concerned to see atheism co-opting science or philosophical inquiry, or asserting that there is no room in organised religion for inquiry or the intellect because that is demonstrably not true, and requires a leap of faith in order to believe it. And also because science and philosophical inquiry are for all and not tools for any particular worldview to use to oppress another.

If one is specifically raising a child to be an atheist then why not? Just like Christian parents send their children to Christian camps - they are reinforcing their value system. All parents do to one degree or another.

I think in those circumstances a child would have a blast at CQ. I think the OP has reservations herself from a religious pov and I don't think a child from a home where the existence of God informs the culture would be 100% enthusiastic about all aspects of the CQ experience, even if intellectual inquiry was something the family valued (because it is possible to believe in God and value intellectual inquiry).

Nowhere does it say this is an atheist camp. It sounds good to me. But no I wouldn't SEND my child there, however if they wanted to go I would happily let them. Agree there are HUNDREDS of christian camps, they were always being offered to us when I was a teenager and although I loved the idea of all the outdoor activity I did feel 20 minutes of bible study and pretending to believe something I didn't was too high a price. A camp like this without all that stuff would have been ideal for me. If ds and dd felt the same I'd go along with it.

"Isn't that just giving them the truth?"

So, what is the truth then? How do you know what is the truth?

If atheists are serious about their rejection of organised religion they should not seek to tell anyone what to think, surely?

Yes, yes, and a thousand times yes! The point is its all about how to think not what to think. Its explicitly not about telling people what to think For instance:

We aim to introduce children to a difficult subject in a fun, casual and engaging way, encouraging campers to develop and articulate their thoughts and certainly encouraging the campers to disagree with each other.'

I'm not 'raising my child to be an atheist', as Molly puts it - I'm trying to raise her to think for herself. And I see nothing in CQ which does anything other than promote this ability.

There really is nothing new under the sun.

If atheists are serious about their rejection of organised religion they should not seek to tell anyone what to think, surely?

Yes, yes, and a thousand times yes! The point is its all about how to think not what to think. Its explicitly not about telling people what to think

Maybe I am confused by the 'Yes, yes' there. But what to think and how to think are two different things. 'How to think' is a central aspect of religious education.

For sceptical people you atheists seem very willing to swallow a prospectus whole.

Sorry if I confused you - I'm now unsure what you mean in return!
I mean, we should not tell children what to think. Not tell them dogmatically there either is or isn't a God, to take the most obvious instance. But do teach them how to think - how to assess and examine evidence for instance, how to consider pros and cons of an argument in a balanced manner, how to devise fair tests etc etc. I know RE has moved on since my day when it was all 'what' rather than 'how', but TBH I don't see much evidence yet of the 'how' in DDs RE - maybe they do later.

For sceptical people you atheists seem very willing to swallow a prospectus whole.

I have absolutely no idea on what you base that assertion.