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?

The unicorn challenge is about exploring the burden of proof in the case of an unfalsifiable claim - its a standard philosophical analogy. The likely outcome is predictable not because of 'groupthink' but because the logic of 'russells teapot' is sound.

I see the discussion has moved on, but I'd happily send my kids to that camp, it sounds great. It is not in fact an 'atheist' camp, from what i've read - you don't need to be an atheist and you don't get convereted to 'atheism'.

No, the groupthink is going to reinforce the predictable conclusion, not lead to the conclusion. It is a way of stifling individual thought, and reinforcing the intended message.

The standard philosophical analysis could equally be applied to some overtly religious topic and no doubt the existence of the angel Gabriel for instance would fail the test, but doing that would be too straightforward, hard edged and unpalatable to the general public, so the unicorn is substituted. Why introduce the idea of assertions that cannot be disproved anyway, if the camp is just about science and good healthy fun? (And there is plenty of junk, maybe including a teapot or two, orbiting celestial bodies nowadays).

I would be happy to send my DCs to a purely science/academic emphasis and exercise camp, and have done. I don't understand why the unicorn has to be included as part of the activities if the camp is not an atheist camp. Which it is, whether you get 'converted' or not, just as a Christian camp is still a Christian camp whether the attendees are Jewish or Muslim, or get converted during their two weeks of crafts and exercise and invitations to ponder the existence of orbiting teapots.

Wikipedia (sorry) on the invisible pink unicorn.

IPU site.

It's satire. Is religion above satire?

I do wonder what relevance social context has when the messenger was the supposed son of an omnipresent, omniscient and benevolent being. The themes of homophobia and blatant anti women are too horrid to think they could come from any such God.

Its science, philosophy and physical fun. If we'd been able to find a camp that was just science/technology and physical activities, DD might have preferred that - but in the absence of such, I've no objection at all to some philosophy and critical thinking. As my DD is starting from a position of total unbelief (which did not arise because I've ever told her there is no God, atheists tend to be rather scrupulous about this), thinking about such things can really only either help her understand better the basis of her beliefs, or possibly challenge it. I'm also not too convinced by your assertions of 'groupthink' ... she's always shown a strong maverick streak, and I don't see anything in what I've read about CQ to indicate that they do anything other than welcome differing views. You may be sceptical but 'free thinking' is one of the underlying ethical principles.

Compare and contrast with Christian Camps. Ever been to one.... I have.

Ihavewelliesbuttheyrenotgreen You seem to have misunderstood. It's not me saying that religion is nice, but other Christians on mumsnet. Feel free to tell them they are wrong though.

Their point (made in a number of threads over years) goes something like this.

"but onagar even if you don't believe in god you must admit that religion causes people to treat others with compassion and decency. It brings together communities and we do all these group things together and get to know each other. Even if it turned out to be all false it would still be a good thing".

They will often mention things like Easter and Christmas which according to them we wouldn't have if not for Christianity. Oh and charity work of course.

Some of their points I agree with of course, but overall I don't see religion as 'nice' so I'm glad we are in agreement on that.

Ivortheengine8 you say "What many people forget is that these books were written in a certain social context"* You also say that jesus swept away the old laws. I know what you are refering to and it's a bit thin and open to interpretation, but it really makes no difference.

Because it's the same god

You are claiming that the morals and the prophecies come from god not from men so that doesn't work does it. if it's the same god then the god you put forward now as an example of morals is the same child murdering/gay bashing pervent. Did he get better? was he seeing a psychiatrist in the meantime?

If you are saying "no the bible has nothing to do with god. It was made up entirely by ancient and barbaric people" then that's different. Are you saying that?

Bear in mind that within the last week on mumsnet (and not for the first time) I have been told that as a human I am not capable of making my own morals, but must get them from the god of the bible. Good thing I don't take that advice isn't it.

mathanxiety not to leave you out, but most of yours seem to be about the unicorn thing and I do think you have the wrong end of the stick there. Mind you I think you'd disapprove of it anyway.

As for my putting words in peoples mouths by saying religion is nice as you can see you misunderstood that too. Actually that is me being tactful. You just didn't read what I said because you already knew I was wrong. Religious people don't have the monopoly on that, but it is a common symptom.

Feel free to go back to the main non-religious camp point. This diversion was mostly about replying to those who wonder why we make such a fuss about it. To establish that there are plausible reasons why an atheist might want to avoid organised religion.

As I said religious people don't have to agree with those reasons. Just accept that if others do feel that way about religion it's understandable that they might not want to be involved.

Onager sorry if I misunderstood you. You are correct that people who believe that Church is 'nice' are wrong and have missed the point. You are also correct that you don't need God in order to do good and have good morals (to an extent). Of course non-religious people do good things, they are good parents, and doctors and teachers and friends. They set up charities and give to charity and push for social reform. IMO this is because we are all made in the image of God so we all have his goodness in us. However we are also all not perfect (far from perfect) we all have bad thoughts even if we don't act on them, we all say things that aren't kind and treat people in a way that isn't good even if we later regret it and we can all be selfish. As a Christian I believe that we need Jesus' death to atone for our sins so we can have a relationship with God. Because God hates sin and loves justice and so deep down do we, although this doesn't stop us from sinning as sin is part of our human nature.

So essentially I don't believe that Church is all about being 'nice' and that non-religious people are not good. It simply isn't as black and white as that. And I will return to the original question in a bit.

HellatWork, no of course religion is not above satire. But a camp where religion is satirised is probably not one where a child whose family practices a religion would feel comfortable. It's a children's camp experience we're talking about here, and the unicorn has a didactic role in this camp.

My focus on the unicorn thing is not missing the point, Onagar. The unicorn is the whole point of this camp. It is not randomly included.

'Free thinking' is used in contrast to the allegedly unfree thinking of non-atheist camps. The CQ site (UK as well as US) makes it clear that they set themselves up in contrast and as an alternative to camps where the existence of God is not talked about (non-denominational, and focused on football or science or sailing, etc.,) and those where the existence of God is the central theme (bible camps or whatever -- I have no experience of these but they exist, and I wouldn't send my DCs to one).

Onagar, when it seems so many people are misunderstanding you and unable to really read what you have written it is perhaps time to examine what you are writing for obtuseness.

'Free thinking' is used in contrast to the allegedly unfree thinking of non-atheist camps

I think you're overanalysing and misinterpreting... its a standard label for a philosophical stance.
One which is at odds with the interpretation you're presenting.

'But a camp where religion is satirised is probably not one where a child whose family practices a religion would feel comfortable'

casting my mind back to my childhood, raised in a deeply Christian but also scientific family, I don't think I'd have been at all uncomfortable with the unicorn.

Its not like there's any shortage of pure activity camps or Christian ones , this is just adding a secular mental+physical option to the mix.

the unicorn thing tends to have believers reach the same conclusion as atheists - that Gods non-existence is not provable in that way (though i find the Problem of Evil provides a useful alternative)

that is not group think. that is following an argument to its logical conclusion.

as a few others have said.

Incidentally, that sort of argument is regularly looked at in Philosophy of Religion lessons - where often both the people writing the books, the teachers and the students are all Christians. There is nothing particularly atheist or even secular about such arguments.

Agree with Eggt - this is based on Bertrand russell's teapot analogy which I learnt at school ( taught by a reverend) and has connections with the ontological argument for existence of God (anselm and descartes versions) Nothing sinister about it and has a history within religious philosophy.

I have 2 religious parents ( different religions) and I don't think i woukd have been at all uncomfortable at this camp as a child. However I was too uncomfortable at Brownies to lie about believing in God in order to take part so unfortunately I missed out in that (25 years ago) but i think they have changed this requirement now haven't they?

Mathanxiety - think it is a little unfair to say so many people are misunderstanding onagar when i can only see you and greenwellies saying that on the thread? Onagar's arguments seem clear to me and quite a few others.

Apols for terrible typos on phone

I gave up discussion with onegar as didn't understand the point she was making to me!!!

onegar is a 'he'.

Hell...Nope, unless websites need updating its still:

Brownie Promise
I promise that I will do my best
To love my God,
To serve the Queen and my country,
To help other people
And
To keep the Brownie Guide Law

Grimma Thanks for that (should have googled myself but was sure I'd read other threads on here about how that had changed - but maybe changed to 'my God' from just God to allow other religions to join in). Sadly, unless I declare I'm the God of me (tempting) looks like I will still be unable to join the Brownies (ignoring the wrinkles and small child I have). Also I re-read and upthread realised that someone had already posted that CQ was set up because Scouts demand a belief in God before being allowed to join so I missed that!

I suppose what is frustrating to agnostics/atheists is that some religious people often find it impossible to understand a different viewpoint because they are so entrenched in what they believe they can't look beyond that - which is a shame because that's just the kind of view that intolerance loves to capitalise on. It is a very particular mindset which is equally dangerous on the atheist side (hence my dislike for Dawkins because I often feel he writes/speaks as dogmatically as any religious person) but he has my sympathies I suppose because I often feel that unless I say I am an atheist I am ripe for conversion because agnostic seems to say to some religious people "oh go on persuade me". Bit like being a floating voter.

As to free thinking vs. 'unfree' -- the history of CQ as an alternative to the scouts suggests that I am right. The original ethos of CQ needs to be seen in the American context and not just with the more European focus on philosophy. CQ in the American context has a purpose related to the maintenance of the separation of church and state.

Some atheists come across as quite militantly 'atheist against religion' and I think this camp in its European incarnation falls into that category.

In a camp full of children I think the alternative conclusions, the problem of evil, or any other philosophy of religion issues would probably be overlooked in favour of the obvious analogy being played out to its logical conclusion. (Though admittedly the prize for proving the non-existence of the unicorn has apparently never been awarded). I think merely presenting the unicorn analogy serves a purpose. Since the camps are intended primarily for the children of non-theists, there is a certain amount of preaching to the choir going on.

Onagar's favourite rhetorical devices are to tell people to learn to read and to claim he is being misunderstood.

Some atheists come across as quite militantly 'atheist against religion' and I think this camp in its European incarnation falls into that category.

We'll have to agree to differ on that. I wouldn't be sending my DD there if I thought that!

What's the problem with preaching to the choir? The phrase itself originates in in religion. Aren't atheists allowed to do what religion does all the time?

I can understand that being religious means you can't understand how someone cannot be religious, I really do. I'm the same, just on the other side of the fence to that. I appreciate what religion brings to people's lives at a personal level (structure, spirituality, moral guidance, a sense of community) but it comes at a huge cost to society: wars, intra-religious fighting, support and perpetuation of the unequal position of women in society to name a few (persecution and killing of women at its height during the witchcraft trials). Organised religion to me has a very bloody and awful past. What I can't understand is this feeling that this camp is somehow subversive or sinister because it simply wants to opt out of religion and one of the activities outlined is an exercise in logical reasoning (with a long history of having been debated and considered by other religious thinkers as part of religious philosophy).

Mathanxiety As a child do you think I should have lied about believing in God to get to do fun activities with children of my own age? Or do you think I should just have been denied them on the basis that I was unwilling to lie, simply because there were no other options open to me because no one, apparently, is allowed to opt out of religion. Rather fucks up the concept of free will, if the latter is true.

cjel Fair enough!

However, on the first two pages I counted over 30 different posters on this poster. 3 have said they are unable to understand Onagar's arguments. Plenty have disagreed with them, but to disagree with them implies a level of understanding for them to even decide they do not agree. Even if we discount the fact there are probably more than 30 different posters on this thread in total (beyond my page 2), 3 out of 30 is 10% which to me doesn't equal "so many". I'm not very good at maths (I suspect mathanxiety is because maths would not feature in my life greatly enough for me to choose it as a username but that's pure speculation) but I think even I would be hard pressed to express 10% as "so many".

You're making a lot of assumptions about me there HellAtWork, and about a lot of people who are members of a religion. I can't understand why atheists would want to do something that members of organised religions would, and preach to the choir, especially in a camp where rigorous/scientific/philosophical thought is ostensibly the focus. When a didactic tool such as the pink unicorn is used, among other icons of atheism, the camp is opting out of organised religion in the sense of the main churches, denominations, etc., but I think there is a danger of setting up a canon of atheism, even items of atheist dogma and doctrine. It would be only human to want to not 'lose' a child to religion and highly unlikely that such an irony would be countenenced by camp organisers.

It is a pity that you, your children or mine could not feel comfortable going to any old camp with any attractive activity available, that camps where no-one has to compromise their beliefs seem to be so few and far between. I feel very lucky to have found the camp that my DCs went to in the US; I felt it was completely free of any pro or anti religious bias and it focused on the activities pure and simple. They learned a lot and made good friends.

Okay...my assumptions:

1. You're making a lot of assumptions about me there HellAtWork

Apologies for assuming you were better than maths than me. Most people are!

1. and about a lot of people who are members of a religion

Assumptions which have then been tested against personal experience, from attending a church school, from studying religion at school and out of personal interest, from attending church services, from mixing with people from a variety of religions. I think we all make assumptions - the only problem with assumptions is if we don't test those out to see if they are true.

1. Two wrongs don't make a right (BythebeardofZeus's point earlier)

I think, if I understand correctly, you're saying organised religion is allowed to be dogmatic and didactic, but atheism, because it is in opposition to organised religion by virtue of it's belief 'in nothing' is not. So therefore why would atheism behave in a way organised religion does? I agree that two wrongs don't make a right but then isn't that accepting that organised religion is wrong in the way it teaches the existence of God as fact?

"but I think there is a danger of setting up a canon of atheism, even items of atheist dogma and doctrine" So religion can have canons, dogma and doctrine. Atheism can't. (Can Humanism have any of these things?) Why would this be dangerous? Because it challenges the monopoly of religion on what to tell people to believe?

1. Philosophical enquiry

You state that, amongst other things, the CQ camp is ostensibly teaching philosophy. IPU/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Bertrand Russell's teapot is a philosophical tool to show that if someone asserts something, (the existence of an invisible being, be it God or a Pink Unicorn) the philosophical burden of proof is on that person to evidence that assertion, and not on others to disprove the existence of an invisible being otherwise it is by default accepted as existing in reality. It is not telling people to believe or not believe in an Invisible Pink Unicorn (which would make it didactic I agree). That would be the analagous situation to organised religion. It is telling them how, philosophically and logically, it cannot be expected that others disprove the existence of the invisible being. I cannot accuse someone of a crime and demand they exonerate themselves and if they don't they must be guilty without first putting forward my evidence (discharging my burden of proof). That is logical surely?

I understand faith as a leap of logic. It does not require logic and it is something people feel within them. Faith is saying I do not need logic to know God exists, I just do. That is absolutely fine - UNTIL the point at which some people's faith starts to proscribe other people's freedoms (e.g. exemptions for religions to be able to discriminate under Equality Act accorded to no other 'groups') and other people's freedom not to believe or where faith is accorded an exempt position in society where it is allowed to monopolise society in a way which excludes non-believers. Organised religion holds that monopoly. Moreover, it is a didactic monopoly because it does tell people what they should and should not believe. Organised religion sadly isn't about teaching tools for enquiry to reach your own conclusion. There is only one conclusion: God exists. The IPU competition asks how do you prove God exists. There is a vast difference.

I don't dread 'losing' a child to religion. I wouldn't view it in those terms. If my DS chooses to follow a religion because he recognises he has faith and wants to feel that faith with others who do, that is nothing bad. All I would dread is him being brainwashed to the extent that he feels he has no choice but to be religious (whether by the stick of hell or the carrot of heaven or even just societal acceptance). There have been some very interesting threads on here recently (most notably the STEPs group entering a school to spend a day preaching about their own peculiar brand of christianity) that demonstrate to me that religious attempts at brainwashing children are alive and well.

I agree entirely with your last paragraph and wish it were so.