Aethist holiday camp

[madd0ct0r]

Thought it may actually be of use to some of you.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.c ... d=14031492

[Dark Lord of the Bith]

I'm not a fan of the cartoon they show depicting it, especially since it's opposite in tone to the rest of the article in the way they portray the camp. I like how the camp seems to focus on teaching skepticism and the scientific method, which is far more useful in various aspects of life, as opposed to the moral preaching at a religious camp.

[Traveller]

Interesting article. One thing I would question is the writer's assertion is that atheists are not persecuted. He supports this by referring to FBI statistics, which have a much more precise definition of hate crimes as I understand it. Is the murder of doctors by christian fanatics that perform abortions not a "hate crime"? It’s my understanding that atheists can be and are harassed to greater or lesser degrees quite routinely in the United States. Of course, the actual circumstances and degree will vary greatly depending where you are, thus many forms of harassment will either be in the grey areas or simply not reported. I would be surprised if the FBI even gives much weight in it’s reporting of incidents where the primary motive is the victim’s lack of belief. But that aside, there is a great need for camps such as this. Western education simply does not see the value of teaching formal logic and the scientific method to young students. What we do is wait till there 18+ and allready have all there prejudices and biases firmly in place, before offering it as an elective during post-secondary education.

[Darth Wong]

The only reason atheists are not persecuted more often is the fact that we can't be identified on sight, like a black person. Every atheist knows the drill: when you're in the wrong company, you keep your head down and avoid mentioning your atheism. Christians don't have to worry about this. What Christian in America actually worries about what might happen if people find out he's Christian?

[Shroom Man 777]

Which is really odd, since they LOVE all those delusional stories about Christians being rebuked by uppity atheists who "know better" before the atheist professor drops some piece of chalk that doesn't break, and then the atheist terrorists hold up a church and everyone who accepts Jesus gets shot while those who renounce him are released (Christ, they do send chain letters like this. I wonder how many of them DO believe that this is real!).

[Traveller]

I don't doubt for one second that christian lunatics, if they had there way, would make all atheists wear some sort of symbol to make them stand out(sound familar?), its why they call anyone that fights against them a "Darwinist" or "Evilutionist".It frustrates christian fanatics to no end that all those evil "Darwinist's" look exactly like everyone else I have seen some reports on this issue mention that Atheists as are less popular than Jews, Muslims, Amway Representatives and communists. So im not sure how the economist can assert there not well liked, then turn around and say they suffer from virtually no presecution. That simply flies in the face of how christian persecution generally operates, and in the US in particular.

[Melchior]

Which is really odd, since they LOVE all those delusional stories about Christians being rebuked by uppity atheists who "know better" before the atheist professor drops some piece of chalk that doesn't break, and then the atheist terrorists hold up a church and everyone who accepts Jesus gets shot while those who renounce him are released (Christ, they do send chain letters like this. I wonder how many of them DO believe that this is real!).

An advantage of being an atheist is that paying lip service to random fairytale beliefs, while irritating (and clearly self-defeating, long-term), has no particular ethical relevance and you have no reason to feel bad about it if it's for your personal safety (as lamentable as such a necessity is).

So im not sure how the economist can assert there not well liked, then turn around and say they suffer from virtually no presecution. That simply flies in the face of how christian persecution generally operates, and in the US in particular.

The sort of person who resorts to actual violence instead of poisonous lobbying, even among fundamentalist, isn't particularly bright. Atheist do not, usually, associate visibly on the basis of their lack of religious belief, this makes them a comparatively difficult target.

[Darth Wong]

It's also interesting that they don't count it as "persecution" unless there's violence. White people think racial affirmative action is "persecution" but they don't think it's "persecution" that it's basically impossible for an atheist to hold elected office in large swathes of the country, never mind becoming President. They don't think it's "persecution" that religions get special treatment from the state, and atheists are forced to pay taxes to help. They don't think it's "persecution" that atheists must be careful who they identify themselves to. Oh no, if they aren't being murdered or bludgeoned in large numbers, then everything's fine!

[Melchior]

White people think racial affirmative action is "persecution"

They also need to be morons, not only white.

but they don't think it's "persecution" that it's basically impossible for an atheist to hold elected office in large swathes of the country, never mind becoming President. They don't think it's "persecution" that religions get special treatment from the state, and atheists are forced to pay taxes to help. They don't think it's "persecution" that atheists must be careful who they identify themselves to. Oh no, if they aren't being murdered or bludgeoned in large numbers, then everything's fine!

Admittedly, that's a very narrow use of the word.

[Traveller]

Admittedly, that's a very narrow use of the word.

Of course it is, but that is the use the economist uses to support there somewhat rosy interpritaion. Rather than get into a debate about what constitues persecution, which would be hopless in any event, I think most of us would agree that the notion that only 1/2 a dozen cases against atheists(which is dubious in itself), means all is well, thats a tough sell. Hell, even christians play the presecution card since well....year 1 CE. Of course to them, persecution means, 'we didn't get our way, or someone said something we didn't like about our bullshit belief's.' Persecution is not simply physical violence, its meaning is somewhat broader than that, but like a lot of words in our language, it can be used just as often to push peoples emotional buttons than to convey a discret meaning. All three fundy US presidents as an example Reagan, Bush the Elder and Bush the moron, made very specific and critical comments about atheists during there terms. Was that persecution?, strictly speaking no, it wasnt. Did it encourage and advocate a perseuction of atheists? I think one could easily make a case that in fact was meant to do just that. After all, the senior leaders of the christian cults in the past, seldom persectued anyone personally, thats what inquistors, torturers and fanatical warrior-orders are for. It is even more telling that AFIAK, none of those three made similar comments that muslims etc, are not US citizens, shouldnt hold office and all of the other insults those 3 presidents slung at non-believers. Is it necessary to point out if the fundies had the power, that camp would be shut down faster than you can say "Praise Jesus". Would that not be persecution just because it is not socially acceptable for christians to rack there opponents these days?