jump to navigation

Go to Camp Atheist July 22, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mechanistic Relativism.
trackback

via the deranged PZ comes this article describing camp for “free thinkers” in Minnesota; a camp for people . . .

who maintain a naturalistic, not a supernaturalistic, world view,”

and where the “free thinkers” are subjected to camp rallies on such breathtaking topics as

First Amendment rights, featuring a speaker from the American Civil Liberties Union; secular ethics, evolution and lighter topics such as “science fiction and humanism,”

What fun. The counselor/camper ratio is 2/1, which should be no surprise, as I expect that kids -even those with self-proclaimed atheist parents as PZ- are not beating down the doors to attend this left-wing inculturation fest.

Oh, and PZ is going to speak there. WHOOPEE!!!

Call it whatever they like, just not a gathering of free thinkers. Those poor kids are being as heavily inculcated in groupthink as the Hitler Youth were in the ’30s.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Sophist - July 23, 2006

Oh, come on! Hitler Youth comparisons? Couldn’t you come up with some criticisms that are, you know…not totally insane? I mean, way to trivialize fascism there, buddy. One wonders, though, where you go from here. I mean, if you pull out the Nazi comparisons for a summer camp, what do you do when you have to write about something non-trivial, compare it to the heat-death of the universe or something? I fear you’ve painted your self into a bit of a rhetorical corner here.

As for the camp itself, there are a heck of a lot more bible camps than atheist camps. Are they all hitler youth too, or are they ok because you agree with their indoctrination?

2. Sophist - July 23, 2006

Oh, and how truly odd that you left this part out:

Then there are sessions in which religious speakers are invited to talk about their beliefs. “We want to give kids the ability to understand and talk to religious people,” Rohrer said.

Inviting people with other viewpoints to speak? You’re right, these people have no reason to call themselves freethinkers. Bunch of stinking hypocrites.

Just out of curiosity though, how many bible camps invite atheists to speak?

3. IndianCowboy - July 23, 2006

i see no classes on justification of ‘man as the measure of all things that can pass an evolutionary and naturalistic test. (none has been made yet).

Nor any classes on the rest of the amendments, nor the differences between classical liberal principles and what PZ and his ilk preach.

4. demolition65 - July 23, 2006

Oh, come on! Hitler Youth comparisons? Couldn’t you come up with some criticisms that are, you know…not totally insane?

Nope. Otherwise you won’t tee off.

Inviting people with other viewpoints to speak? You’re right, these people have no reason to call themselves freethinkers. Bunch of stinking hypocrites. Yes. You are somewhat correct. I noticed that little item after i put up the post, but decided to leave the post unchanged in that the atheists have every intention of bringing in poor speakers, the better to allow the “free thinking” campers to sharpen their rhetorical tools, as inculcated in them by the counselors.
“We want to give kids the ability to understand and talk to religious people,” Rohrer said. “talk to ” in this case is code for “refute.”

Sorry, my rhetorical friend, but what I wrote still stands, no matter how the agnostic programmers pretty it up.

5. demolition65 - July 23, 2006

And IC, you raise valid points, as usual.

6. Sophist - July 23, 2006

Nope. Otherwise you won’t tee off.

Not teed off, just…dissapointed I guess. You’re a pretty decent writer, and I would have expected something that wasn’t so laughably inapt.

Yes. You are somewhat correct. I noticed that little item after i put up the post…

A word of advice—read the article first, then comment.

…but decided to leave the post unchanged in that the atheists have every intention of bringing in poor speakers, the better to allow the “free thinking” campers to sharpen their rhetorical tools, as inculcated in them by the counselors.

You ability to diving the intentions of others, at a distance, through the intenet is amazing. Really, it’s quite a neat trick.

“talk to ” in this case is code for “refute.”

Are you just completely unable to allow that an atheist might—occasionally, every now and then, once in awhile—act in good faith?

Sorry, my rhetorical friend, but what I wrote still stands, no matter how the agnostic programmers pretty it up.

In other words, no matter what they say, no matter what they do, you know that they really have nefarious goals in mind. I mean, they’re agnostic—what other type of motive could they possibly have, right?

7. demolition65 - July 24, 2006

Not teed off, just…dissapointed I guess. You’re a pretty decent writer, and I would have expected something that wasn’t so laughably inapt. Well, at least we know where you stand.

A word of advice—read the article first, then comment. Granted, though all I would have then done is disclaimed it.

You ability to diving the intentions of others, at a distance, through the intenet is amazing. Really, it’s quite a neat trick. All I have to say to this is prove me wrong.

Are you just completely unable to allow that an atheist might—occasionally, every now and then, once in awhile—act in good faith? Of course not. But it has been my experience on the Internet that with those that take the time to vocalize their thoughts that they are just as beholden to their dogmas as Christians supposedly are. Examples are more common than the plague in the 16th Century: PZ, Pandagon, any number of moonbats over at Kos. . .

In other words, no matter what they say, no matter what they do, you know that they really have nefarious goals in mind. I mean, they’re agnostic—what other type of motive could they possibly have, right? I already went into this above.

8. Sophist - July 24, 2006

All I have to say to this is prove me wrong.

Ignoring the fact that you, as the one making claims about dishonesty and deviousness, ought to be the one providing proof, what sort of proof could I possibly provide that you wouldn’t “disclaim”?

9. IndianCowboy - July 25, 2006

As an agnostic I’m with hoody on this one. Sorry, but this camp comes across as rather one sided. It’s my experience that most people who refer to themselves as ‘free thinkers’ are just as guilty of groupthink as anyone else.

anyone who can claim that humanism is naturalistic is out of their mind, as I said earlier. Not to mention that the difference between agnosticism and atheism is an extremely important one. I tend to get annoyed by atheists much more than believers of any faith (well most faiths). At least those who believe in a god openly admit that it is a matter of belief.

Hoody has evinced the same opinion several times, as I recall.

10. demolition65 - July 27, 2006

Sophist, SHOW me that their intent is not to indoctrinate. A tall order, to be sure.

And see what IC says below your latest.

11. Sophist - July 28, 2006

Sophist, SHOW me that their intent is not to indoctrinate. A tall order, to be sure.

What am I supposed to do, split open the orgaizer’s heads, pour their thoughts into a mason jar and mail it to you? I mean, you won’t take their word, you won’t take the Star Tribune’s, and I doubt you’d take the word of a participant either, what with all the atheist brainwashing. There’s no way to satisfy you, is there?

And see what IC says below your latest.

I saw it. His main point seems to be that freethinkers are just like everyone else. Funny thing though, you didn’t call everyone else Nazis. Even if the camp was about indoctrination, it’d be no different from what most mainstream religious groups do. So unless you’re also making Hitler Youth comparisons with regard to Sunday School, your problem is not with the tactics being used, it’s the fact that you disagree with what is being taught. Which makes you seem an awful lot like a bigot.

12. demolition65 - July 29, 2006

There’s no way to satisfy you, is there? Sure there is. All they need to do is admit that they in fact are not “free thinkers” but are just as enslaved to their own world view as the folks “enslaved to religion” supposedly are.

your problem is not with the tactics being used, it’s the fact that you disagree with what is being taught. Which makes you seem an awful lot like a bigot. My problem is not entirely with the tactics, but mostly with what is being taught. Content. The 20th Century was replete with examples of political models free from the restraining influences of Judeo-Christian teachings. The result? Over 26 million deaths.

While Chrisitianity certainly has its blemishes, it can’t hold a candle to the death and destruction that results from the removal of God and Christ from the social equation.

So, call it what you will. Hitler Youth. Young Octobrists.

And NO, I am not advocating theocracy. Don’t even begin that red herring.

13. Sophist - July 30, 2006

While Chrisitianity certainly has its blemishes, it can’t hold a candle to the death and destruction that results from the removal of God and Christ from the social equation.

Oh please, you can’t just compare body counts. If Stalin only had pre-industrial weapons and population densities to work with he would have had nowhere near as many notches on his belt, and if the crusaders had nukes most of the middle east would be a glass parking lot. What you have the ability to do and what you would be willing to do are two separate things, and it is the latter that determines how evil you are.

So, call it what you will. Hitler Youth. Young Octobrists.

Or, here’s a though, how about calling it what it is—a goddamn summer camp?

And NO, I am not advocating theocracy. Don’t even begin that red herring.

What, exactly, are you advocating then? Because Nazi comparisons come with an implicit call for extreme action. I’m just wondering sort of Omaha Beach analog you’re hoping for.

14. demolition65 - July 30, 2006

if the crusaders had nukes most of the middle east would be a glass parking lot. A serious historical stretch, and I think you know this. And to take that flawed analogy of yours just a tad farther, one could easily say that Vienna. . .and for that matter Rome, Paris and London would also be glass parking lots. . .while your (IS it yours?) precious current versions of “free thinkers” would instead be toiling in the Muslim vision of heaven on earth.

you can’t just compare body counts. It’s much more than comparing body counts. It ties into the inherent evils of the relative philosophies/belief systems. Atheism at its logical end is about anarchy.

What, exactly, are you advocating then? What I said earlier. Simply that they acknowledge the fact that they in fact are NOT “free thinkers”.

15. demolition65 - July 30, 2006

And upon reflection, the body count comparison DOES hold water. Let us consider if Stalin (or Hitler) had the bomb first. The likely result? The following cities are in ruins: Washington, New York, possibly Chicago, London, Paris (in all likelihood), and either Berlin/Moscow. If Stalin gets ahold of it, Tokyo goes too. In the unlikely event that they share the secret with Japan, LA, SF, Honolulu, Seattle and Vancouver also go up in flames. And the body count increases. Meanwhile, the old USA, even with its foundation in Christian values devoid of sponsorship of one particular denomination, bombs two relatively minor Japanese cities. Not to excuse those uses of The Bomb, I would nevertheless say that the onus is on the atheists to prove that the Atheist Communists/National Socialists would in the end be more “humanitarian.”

16. Sophist - July 30, 2006

A serious historical stretch, and I think you know this.

Are you kidding? The crusaders were sacking cities and slaughtering non-coms before they’d even made it out of Europe. They were a fanatical mob that was given spiritual carte blanche for whatever sins they saw fit to commit.

It ties into the inherent evils of the relative philosophies/belief systems. Atheism at its logical end is about anarchy.

Yeah, and the “logical end” for Catholicism is that all children ought to be drowned in the baptismal font while they’re in a state of grace.

What I said earlier. Simply that they acknowledge the fact that they in fact are NOT “free thinkers”.

So you’re fine with Nazis, so long as they admit they’re Nazis? If the Third Reich had been honest about their intentions you would have said “Oh, OK” and let them be?

…I would nevertheless say that the onus is on the atheists to prove that the Atheist Communists/National Socialists would in the end be more “humanitarian.”

I don’t have to defend Hitler or Stalin to defend atheism, any more than you need to defend witchhunts to defend Catholicism. They’re not inextricably linked.

17. demolition65 - July 30, 2006

They were a fanatical mob that was given spiritual carte blanche for whatever sins they saw fit to commit. They were given temporal carte blanche. And you have not answered my subsequent challenges on this point.

the “logical end” for Catholicism is that all children ought to be drowned in the baptismal font while they’re in a state of grace. Utter and complete horsefeathers. Here you either show your complete and disqualifying lack of knowledge, or a willful, if not outright malevolent, misreading of Catholic dogma. I had thought you above this.

So you’re fine with Nazis, so long as they admit they’re Nazis? You are really fixated on this Nazi issue, aren’t you? In the end, that is not the point, and I think you know it. the point -again- is that this camp focuses on groupthink, just like the Hitler Youth, Young Octobrists, or for that matter, the Boy Scouts, engage in. Your obsession with the Nazi point makes me wonder if there is a personal issue at stake here. I can’t imagine why, as to the best of my knowledge there are no White Supremacy cells in the Central Washington/Ellensburg area to bestir your concern.

I don’t have to defend Hitler or Stalin to defend atheism, any more than you need to defend witchhunts to defend Catholicism. There my friend, you are wrong. Both Communism and National Socialism stem directly from philosophical materialism; they are both the diseased children of Nietzsche. Witchhunts on the other hand derive from a rather demented form of Calvinism and bear no real relation to either Catholicism or the Inquisition. And if you intend to wield the Inquisition stick, don’t bother. The excesses are related far more to excess brutality associated with unique Spanish cultural issues than any intentions passed down from the Vatican.

18. Sophist - August 5, 2006

Utter and complete horsefeathers. Here you either show your complete and disqualifying lack of knowledge, or a willful, if not outright malevolent, misreading of Catholic dogma. I had thought you above this.

See, that’s the difference between a logical end and a “logical end”. The former comes from an honest goodfaith effort to understand, the other results in some jerk saying “Atheism at its logical end is about anarchy” or “the ‘logical end’ for Catholicism is that all children ought to be drowned in the baptismal font”.

You are really fixated on this Nazi issue, aren’t you? In the end, that is not the point, and I think you know it. the point -again- is that this camp focuses on groupthink, just like the Hitler Youth, Young Octobrists, or for that matter, the Boy Scouts, engage in.

1) I’m fixated? You can’t seem to post anything about the issue without mentioning Nazis or Communists, even though you say they’re not the point.

2) No, you claim—while having no firsthand knowledge of the matter—that the camp focuses on groupthink, and you do so solely because you don’t like atheists.

I can’t imagine why, as to the best of my knowledge there are no White Supremacy cells in the Central Washington/Ellensburg area to bestir your concern.

The best of your knowledege sucks.

There my friend, you are wrong.

No, I’m not.

19. demolition65 - August 6, 2006

You have made no point that can be seen.

“Atheism at its logical end is about anarchy” or “the ‘logical end’ for Catholicism is that all children ought to be drowned in the baptismal font”.. As I said earlier, philosophically, Atheism has no other option. It is animalisitic in its ends. It has no source for moral conduct. And you apparently persist in your malevolence towards Catholicism in so insistent a misreading.

1) I’m fixated? You can’t seem to post anything about the issue without mentioning Nazis or Communists, even though you say they’re not the point. Heh. Yeah. Right. Let’s see some citations.

2) No, you claim—while having no firsthand knowledge of the matter—that the camp focuses on groupthink, and you do so solely because you don’t like atheists. Granted I am claiming with no firsthand knowledge. But I have seen with my own eyes the groupthink in action, repeatedly, at agitprop lefty sites, as I have also said over and over. The point, which you insist on missing, is that they are too guilty of the groupthink that they claim to be so free of.

The best of your knowledege sucks.. Go back to my original post, rotohead. Central Washington/Ellensburg area. You then provide me with links with claims in Idaho, Wyoming, Eugene, Seattle and Portland (which I have little doubt are legitimate. I made no comment about the Greater Northwest. Get over yourself.

And you ARE seriously beginning to look like this is an issue for you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: