The book's strongest defect for forearming against sociopaths is that it leaves the most important rule silent, and that is the economy of violence.
If the rule is to do whatever you can get away with, then if violence will get you what you want and you can get away with it, then why not do it?
Speaking of this rule is forbidden - it weakens the sociopath's hand, for the victim is an easier mark if they expect every attack but that which is most final and unchangeable.
That's the great secret: murder for gain.
I have no respect for those authors. The philosophy is satanic for helping create sociopaths, and the book is so for giving non-sociopaths the comforting illusion that they understand how the game is really played.
Air Raid Warden in Physics Lab: Why is it so different from an H-bomb? Professor Alfred Kokintz: H-bomb? This new bomb is based on quodium, which is 100 times more powerful than hydrogen. Helen Kokintz: My father uses an H-bomb just to trigger this one.
"But there's a profound difference in not just the beliefs, but the knowledge and understanding that takes you to the conclusion."
I've spent too much time on Reddit to accept that. Sorry. I will only say that I strongly disagree with your assertion that there is only one legitimate kind of "knowledge and understanding" (the kind you have experienced), and instead will say that no more than a fraction of athiests I have found or read appear to actually expend sincere mental toil or effort in analyzing or verifying the positions they are willing to defend so vociferously. (There are some, but they are usually more subdued and prefer to exchange ideas rather than bandy insults.) The run-of-the-mill athiest would much rather rely on the words and ideas of those they trust. In this respect they have much in common with many religious people.
I couldn't say whether that is true of YOU, of course, but your smug alternation between insult and patronization does not leave me hopeful. Nor does your willingness to advocate the words of a polemicist like Hitchens. That guy hardly convinces anyone of anything. His books are for the already converted, which is why you like them so much, and I don't. He's the Michael Moore of philosophy. Don't think that just because reading his books makes YOU burst with pleasure and pride, they will inspire believers into accepting a different worldview.
(Fun fact: Googling the words "hitchens convinced me" in quotes returns a grand total of 8 matches. "Hitchens is an idiot" returns 338,000.)
I'm glad you love your daughter a lot. She's a cutie. And I am sorry about your chronic pain. I can't promise that I won't pray for you. :)
Some future conversation between Shannon and his little girl, now all growed up.
Little girl all growed up: Daddy, I attended church with some friends last week. Shannon: That's great! Getting a close-up view of the superstitious is a great way to recognize how foolish they are compared with us critical thinkers. LGAGU: Oh no, Daddy. I really liked it. I think I'll keep going.
What would Shannon say next, I wonder? Would it be
"I'll always love you no matter where your life's course takes you. Keep on being awesome."
or
"WHAT!? After all the time I spent telling you how to use your brain!?"
or even
"You're a fool and no daughter of mine!"
?
I ask this sincerely. Does the stridence of your views allow you to love and accept those around you despite their own beliefs? I am ready to love my little boy no matter what he does with his life, as painful as it might be to see him blunder through avoidable disasters. And I think I am close to as devout in my own beliefs as you are.
As for your last post, my own faith is quite immune to the charges therein. I would only comment on one passage:
"you should believe with all your might that everyone else is brutally wrong, so wrong that they deserve to be tortured in hell for all eternity simply for not believing the same thing."
Just because the majority of Christendom goes along with the Dantean vision of heaven and hell doesn't mean all do. (and stop blaming the Jehovah's Witnesses for the Spanish Inquisition, too! :)
God loves all his children, and doesn't fry them everlastingly for not filling out their checklist of religious conformity properly.
Eternal rewards rely on the development of the soul, not on some arbitrary imposition from outside. I think of heaven and hell as remarkably similar places. The difference is in the sort of peope that live in each.
Sartre got close, but still had it wrong. Hell isn't other people, it is our own brains. Put a miserable man in a mansion and he'll stay miserable. Put a miserable man in heaven and it, by definition, becomes hell.
The reward of the righteous is that they get to be themselves forever.
The punishment of the wicked is that they have to be themselves forever.
If you see a believer whose soul is cankered with hatred, pride or fear, there's not much God can do for them, regardless of how well they go through the motions of orthodoxy.
"It's only when they divorced that he suddenly "found" his religion. The fact that he invited a camera crew to come with him is pretty telling. It's not about religion, it's an ass screwing over his ex wife and blatantly ignoring a court order because he knows that as the religious majority he is going to get the sympathy in the mainstream US press."
Suppose the fellow "rediscovered" he was an atheist rather than a Catholic, and the judge issued an order requiring him to take his daughter to church. Would you agree with that, even if the dad was a nauseating publicity hound and wanted to be on tv? I wouldn't.
The power of the state shouldn't be backing either horse in this race. They should figure it out themselves.
"I agree with Shannon that indoctrinating children is not a good idea. It seems to me that teaching a child to behave decently, treat others with respect, etc. because it's the right thing to do.."
I'm glad you really agree that indoctrinating is a good idea. It doesn't have to be "doctrine" to be "indoctrination". Children with their undeveloped brains aren't animals. Even at a young age they are learning to be human and how to live, and need to be taught the best and noblest morals that their parents can come up with.
"Children should be encouraged to think for themselves and encouraged to ask questions."
"Replace "God" with "Leprecaun" or "Ghosts" or "Cyclopean Giants" or "Zeus" or whatever mythology is not your personal superstition and see if your response sounds as clever as it does in its initial version."
I cannot disprove the existence of any of those. What's more, if I found someone that believed in any of them, I should not want to be as insulting as you are even if I were as dismissive.
Though I agree one must not believe without evidence. We're just disagreeing about what constitutes valid evidence.
Um, wow. That sounded kind of defensive. I think you're proving my point for me.
Shannon and his little girl talking:
Shannon: My dear, if anyone ever says they saw God, they're either crazy or lying. Shannon's little girl: But why, daddy? Shannon: Because I've never seen God. It is not reasonable for a God to show himself to one person but not another. Therefore all theophanies are false. Shannon's little girl: What's a theophany? Shannon: Something religious people say when they're not busy with "all the violence and hatred and evil that they bring with" their superstitions.
If the rule is to do whatever you can get away with, then if violence will get you what you want and you can get away with it, then why not do it?
Speaking of this rule is forbidden - it weakens the sociopath's hand, for the victim is an easier mark if they expect every attack but that which is most final and unchangeable.
That's the great secret: murder for gain.
I have no respect for those authors. The philosophy is satanic for helping create sociopaths, and the book is so for giving non-sociopaths the comforting illusion that they understand how the game is really played.
Heyo!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared
Air Raid Warden in Physics Lab: Why is it so different from an H-bomb?
Professor Alfred Kokintz: H-bomb? This new bomb is based on quodium, which is 100 times more powerful than hydrogen.
Helen Kokintz: My father uses an H-bomb just to trigger this one.
I've spent too much time on Reddit to accept that. Sorry. I will only say that I strongly disagree with your assertion that there is only one legitimate kind of "knowledge and understanding" (the kind you have experienced), and instead will say that no more than a fraction of athiests I have found or read appear to actually expend sincere mental toil or effort in analyzing or verifying the positions they are willing to defend so vociferously. (There are some, but they are usually more subdued and prefer to exchange ideas rather than bandy insults.) The run-of-the-mill athiest would much rather rely on the words and ideas of those they trust. In this respect they have much in common with many religious people.
I couldn't say whether that is true of YOU, of course, but your smug alternation between insult and patronization does not leave me hopeful. Nor does your willingness to advocate the words of a polemicist like Hitchens. That guy hardly convinces anyone of anything. His books are for the already converted, which is why you like them so much, and I don't. He's the Michael Moore of philosophy. Don't think that just because reading his books makes YOU burst with pleasure and pride, they will inspire believers into accepting a different worldview.
(Fun fact: Googling the words "hitchens convinced me" in quotes returns a grand total of 8 matches. "Hitchens is an idiot" returns 338,000.)
I'm glad you love your daughter a lot. She's a cutie. And I am sorry about your chronic pain. I can't promise that I won't pray for you. :)
Little girl all growed up: Daddy, I attended church with some friends last week.
Shannon: That's great! Getting a close-up view of the superstitious is a great way to recognize how foolish they are compared with us critical thinkers.
LGAGU: Oh no, Daddy. I really liked it. I think I'll keep going.
What would Shannon say next, I wonder? Would it be
"I'll always love you no matter where your life's course takes you. Keep on being awesome."
or
"WHAT!? After all the time I spent telling you how to use your brain!?"
or even
"You're a fool and no daughter of mine!"
?
I ask this sincerely. Does the stridence of your views allow you to love and accept those around you despite their own beliefs? I am ready to love my little boy no matter what he does with his life, as painful as it might be to see him blunder through avoidable disasters. And I think I am close to as devout in my own beliefs as you are.
As for your last post, my own faith is quite immune to the charges therein. I would only comment on one passage:
"you should believe with all your might that everyone else is brutally wrong, so wrong that they deserve to be tortured in hell for all eternity simply for not believing the same thing."
Just because the majority of Christendom goes along with the Dantean vision of heaven and hell doesn't mean all do. (and stop blaming the Jehovah's Witnesses for the Spanish Inquisition, too! :)
God loves all his children, and doesn't fry them everlastingly for not filling out their checklist of religious conformity properly.
Eternal rewards rely on the development of the soul, not on some arbitrary imposition from outside. I think of heaven and hell as remarkably similar places. The difference is in the sort of peope that live in each.
Sartre got close, but still had it wrong. Hell isn't other people, it is our own brains. Put a miserable man in a mansion and he'll stay miserable. Put a miserable man in heaven and it, by definition, becomes hell.
The reward of the righteous is that they get to be themselves forever.
The punishment of the wicked is that they have to be themselves forever.
If you see a believer whose soul is cankered with hatred, pride or fear, there's not much God can do for them, regardless of how well they go through the motions of orthodoxy.
Suppose the fellow "rediscovered" he was an atheist rather than a Catholic, and the judge issued an order requiring him to take his daughter to church. Would you agree with that, even if the dad was a nauseating publicity hound and wanted to be on tv? I wouldn't.
The power of the state shouldn't be backing either horse in this race. They should figure it out themselves.
I'm glad you really agree that indoctrinating is a good idea. It doesn't have to be "doctrine" to be "indoctrination". Children with their undeveloped brains aren't animals. Even at a young age they are learning to be human and how to live, and need to be taught the best and noblest morals that their parents can come up with.
"Children should be encouraged to think for themselves and encouraged to ask questions."
I totally agree.
I cannot disprove the existence of any of those. What's more, if I found someone that believed in any of them, I should not want to be as insulting as you are even if I were as dismissive.
Though I agree one must not believe without evidence. We're just disagreeing about what constitutes valid evidence.
I am glad, however, that you think I am clever.
Um, wow. That sounded kind of defensive. I think you're proving my point for me.
Shannon and his little girl talking:
Shannon: My dear, if anyone ever says they saw God, they're either crazy or lying.
Shannon's little girl: But why, daddy?
Shannon: Because I've never seen God. It is not reasonable for a God to show himself to one person but not another. Therefore all theophanies are false.
Shannon's little girl: What's a theophany?
Shannon: Something religious people say when they're not busy with "all the violence and hatred and evil that they bring with" their superstitions.