Friends I need advice about my sister....

[blackraven]

Feanor, don't be so quick to poo poo forced intervention. While the odds are against her, intervention does help many people. It is another option besides just cutting her off or continually throwing money at her and perpetuating her behavior. You can offer her monetary help if she chooses to go to family counceling. This way at least you have some hope of changing her life style. She may be resentful at first but this may pass and she may embrace the help. If she does not then you havent lost any ground.

[Feanor]

..
Can't make up your mind??? [Cut her off or help her out]

...and, also as usual, I love how you try to drag religion into the discussion to try to lay on the guilt.

Worf had the most information about the situation so was likely to make the best decision. He has to live with it and his conscience.

As for religion, Christianity and Islam, (as examples), teach forgiveness and compassion. This is the fact of the matter. Despite that I'm an atheist hence religion per se has no compulsory power over me, I allow that it has some very good precepts.

[markw]

Worf had the most information about the situation so was likely to make the best decision. He has to live with it and his conscience.

Sure, sure. Whatever makes you feel good. The fact is you changed boats in the middle of the stream.

As for religion, Christianity and Islam, (as examples), teach forgiveness and compassion. This is the fact of the matter. Despite that I'm an atheist hence religion per se has no compulsory power over me, I allow that it has some very good precepts.

Yet, for an atheist, you seem pretty free to comment and condemn those that have to go through life with standards you don't feel you need to hold yourself to, don't you?

And again, unless you've been in the situation that several of us have actually had to live through, you really have no basis to be judging anyone. ...just your usual high and mighty pronouncements.

And, to be perfectly clear, I find your dragging religion and condemning those who do believe into any situation you can to be despicable. The act of a true coward who obviously has no standards to hold themself to.

[Feanor]

Feanor, don't be so quick to poo poo forced intervention. While the odds are against her, intervention does help many people. It is another option besides just cutting her off or continually throwing money at her and perpetuating her behavior. You can offer her monetary help if she chooses to go to family counceling. This way at least you have some hope of changing her life style. She may be resentful at first but this may pass and she may embrace the help. If she does not then you havent lost any ground.

I understand and you could be quite right under some circumstances but maybe not this one.

I think forced intervention is more likely to useful with young people but less so with older ones. Yes, older people can change but they must strongly want to chance before advice, counselling, etc., will do any good.

[Smokey]

I'll call her tomorrow and ask for the number of whoever's holding the lein on the car, find out how much she owes and if it's small enough of a figure, I'll buy it outright and be done with it. If not I'll pay the note for few months till she can get a handle on it. After that I'm done.

Can't she ride the public trasportation. I imagine if she (as you said) can't pay her rent, car payment can be spend on other life necessities. I live in city limit and pretty much city bus take me where I need to be since sold my truck 4 months ago.

As for religion, Christianity and Islam, (as examples), teach forgiveness and compassion.

In an ideal world yes it does. But seem once it get filtered thru human interpretation, the opposite happens. That is why believing in God does not necessary mean believing in organized religion.

[Mr Peabody]

Feanor, you and Smokey need to go learn religion if you plan to criticize it with any intelligence. Yes, the Bible does teach compassion when necessary and appropriate. But as many of you who are ignorant to a subject and trying to slander only choose to pick out part of the information. The Bible also teaches one should be a good steward and it rebukes laziness. It also says as Sir T paraphrased, "give a man a fish and he will be hungry again but teach him to fish....". The Bible also says, if I may paraphrase, if a man won't work don't let him eat. Worf knows the situation better and he has to judge what's best. Don't go telling us that because we don't want to continue throwing good money after bad or supporting bad habits because a person refuses to work or live right that we violated God or our hearts are cold.

[Mr Peabody]

Stan, if you don't have any "deadbeats" in your family then you ain't no redneck

[Feanor]

Feanor, you and Smokey need to go learn religion if you plan to criticize it with any intelligence. Yes, the Bible does teach compassion when necessary and appropriate. But as many of you who are ignorant to a subject and trying to slander only choose to pick out part of the information. The Bible also teaches one should be a good steward and it rebukes laziness. It also says as Sir T paraphrased, "give a man a fish and he will be hungry again but teach him to fish....". The Bible also says, if I may paraphrase, if a man won't work don't let him eat. Worf knows the situation better and he has to judge what's best. Don't go telling us that because we don't want to continue throwing good money after bad or supporting bad habits because a person refuses to work or live right that we violated God or our hearts are cold.

Christ rebuked Pharisees and called them hypocrites.

Love trumps justice; this is the core of Jesus' teaching. (Forget the Old Testiment.)

[JohnMichael]

Feanor, you and Smokey need to go learn religion if you plan to criticize it with any intelligence. Yes, the Bible does teach compassion when necessary and appropriate. But as many of you who are ignorant to a subject and trying to slander only choose to pick out part of the information. The Bible also teaches one should be a good steward and it rebukes laziness. It also says as Sir T paraphrased, "give a man a fish and he will be hungry again but teach him to fish....". The Bible also says, if I may paraphrase, if a man won't work don't let him eat. Worf knows the situation better and he has to judge what's best. Don't go telling us that because we don't want to continue throwing good money after bad or supporting bad habits because a person refuses to work or live right that we violated God or our hearts are cold.

Why go to the Bible. A book written by man to control men. Most of which was written long after the events it propsoes to report. Just emulate Jesus and act out of love. Did he reject the tax collector or the Samaritan? Should Worf reject his flesh and blood? Do we know what is in her heart or her struggles?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

In an ideal world yes it does. But seem once it get filtered thru human interpretation, the opposite happens. That is why believing in God does not necessary mean believing in organized religion.

Oh Smoke, you hit a home run with this. The Bible is never the problem(it is a great guide book for life), it is what man does with it, and has done with it that's the problem.

[Mr Peabody]

Why go to the Bible. A book written by man to control men. Most of which was written long after the events it propsoes to report. Just emulate Jesus and act out of love. Did he reject the tax collector or the Samaritan? Should Worf reject his flesh and blood? Do we know what is in her heart or her struggles?

JM, you are falling into the half truth category with Feanor. First of all I did not say cutting Worf's sister off was the way to go, only he would know how she lives her life and would be able to judge. Secondly, how would you know about Jesus if it wasn't for the Bible? And, Jesus taught the tax collector as any one should be taught the Word but if there was not obedience on the tax collector's behalf he would not be accepted by Jesus. Hence, the Bible and Jesus says people will be divided like goats and sheep, goats to destruction and sheep to eternal life. Jesus paid with His life for all to be saved but that doesn't mean all will. The Bible no where says Jesus accepted the tax collector, he didn't discriminate against him but no where did it say the tax collector received a free ride.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Why go to the Bible. A book written by man to control men. Most of which was written long after the events it propsoes to report. Just emulate Jesus and act out of love. Did he reject the tax collector or the Samaritan? Should Worf reject his flesh and blood? Do we know what is in her heart or her struggles?

John,
The Bible was not written to control men, but men have used it to control people. One has to separate the good(which is the Bible) from the bad(how man has used the Bible). Sometimes it is difficult to know one from the other, but I can guarantee you the Bible is a very good book to live by, and you know I am not the Billy Graham type.

Sometimes it is not about rejection, but about correction. Jesus never condoned mooching off others. He however does speak about helping those going through a hard time, but he never mentions helping those with perpetual bad habits, like not working(or wanting to work), and asking others to support them. He says very plainly " man(meaning humans not men) shall earn their meat by the sweat of their OWN brow". That means it is your Christian charge to work for your own living. Now I would never not help somebody in need, but I have learned the hard way that it is not good for me or the other person to be an enabler of bad habits like not wanting to work. If they are unskilled, I have no problem supporting them while they go to trade school, or pay for the trade school itself(much like I have done for my younger twin brothers). However, you cannot do any good for them or yourself if you allow somebody to drag you down with them. Everyone loses in that proposition.

[Pat D]

Kinda strange that I would come to you folks first for advice but hey, I guess you talk to those you love and trust the most. For those who don't know... I've got a twin sister... Denise. She is as different from me as night and day.

I went to college married late
She married right outta high school never finished college.

I've taken care of myself since leaving home at 17.
Denise has been looking for someone to take care of her all her life.

I've never been fired in my life.
Denise has lost every job she's ever had.

I don't believe in "organized religion.
She's a sanctified holy roller Church of God in Christ Zealot.

I have never gone to my family for financial aide of any sort since I left for college and the service at 17.
My sister has NEVER stood on her own two feet in her life.

Bottom line is I sent her $500 and change 2 months ago so she wouldn't be thrown out in the street and now she's back for another $400 plus so she doesn't get her car repossessed. I'm her last resort, she begged, borrowed and burned every bridge she's ever stood on or crossed. She owes thousands to the IRS and her ex-husband left her in the hole as well. She currently works "under the table" when she can and mooches off her grown son who's just back from Iraq. I think he's had enough cause he wouldn't even lend her gas money last week.

We've not been close since I left home. We only meet for funerals and she only calls me when she needs a money. She's never even attempted to pay me back all the thousands she's borrowed over the years. All of our immediate family are dead, I'm her last blood relative cept for her kids. Part of me wants to cut her off at the knees and tell her to "grow up" but another part of me worries that she might harm herself like the pathetic attention whore she is. Any suggestions?

Worf

I'm sorry to hear about this. I have to agree with Sir Terence and those who advocate tough love. I know it's tough saying, "No." She may say all sorts of things about you. She may say how much she will suffer, that there will be dire consequences, and so on. But those things are already happening, whether you supply money or not.

Well, look at it this way. Your sister has managed to get through life so far. She is resourceful, she has survived. She works under the table, so she is resourceful. She is manipulative, a strategy that has worked so far. Her grown son has evidently figured that out. One thing you know is that she is unlikely to keep her promises.

She doesn't need you to help her out. If she doesn't reform, she will probably find someone else to bail her out. That's the way it works. If you give her more money, she will not have to face the consequences of how she lives her life. If you don't give her the money, she may still not have to face the consequences of the way she lives--she can find someone else.

What are the consequences if you don't bankroll her? Well, suppose she loses her car--so what? She's not using it to get to work, so she can get along with out a car. What guarantee have you that she is telling the truth?

Suppose she gets thrown out on the street--well, there places to stay, Salvation Army, shelters, friends, and so on. Again, what guarantee have you she is telling the truth? Or, more properly, whether what she says is true. She sounds like a survivor, so she likely will think of something. You are not her last resort. She only tells you that, and may in fact believe it at the time. And if she doesn't improve her life, your money won't save her.

You and her children could get together to figure out a common approach.

Maybe you can find her a life strategist. There's one on TV called Dr. Phil (McGraw)--well, he's the only one I've ever heard of. But even he can't make anyone do anything.

[RGA]

Sir T

No one needs a book to live morally or ethically by. In fact, it is far easier to argue that the Bible and Koran have wholly horrible lessons of morality, ethics, sado-masichism (and not the fun kind with your local dominatrix).

Here is why.

Morality Without Religion

Humanists often hear the charge that without belief in God there is no basis for morality and thus "anything goes." Actually, most nonbelievers have strong foundations for living ethically.

Self-Defense

As the great nineteenth-century agnostic Robert Ingersoll often explained, one basis for nontheistic morality is simply the idea of self-defense.

Because nontheists do not want to be murdered, robbed, raped, or otherwise injured, they support laws prohibiting those types of harmful acts.

By the same token, their desire to be treated fairly, honestly, and respectfully leads them to advocate laws and rules of conduct that promote fair, honest, and respectful treatment of people.

In this manner, the idea of self-defense produces a just system of laws and social standards.

Enlightened Self-Interest

Another basis for nontheistic morality is the principle of enlightened self-interest. Under this principle, it makes perfectly good sense for a person to treat others kindly and helpfully. The treatment will likely cause them to reciprocate with similar behavior, thereby increasing the person's happiness.

Conversely, if a person treats people selfishly and abusively, he will likely be worse off in the long run. Sooner or later, the victims will realize the injustice being done to them. The usual response is to retaliate against, ostracize, or otherwise punish the wrongdoer.

And it is not just the victims who recognize the wrongdoer as a dangerous person who should be avoided. Those who witness or learn about the wrongdoing are likely to feel the same way.

For instance, some people have no qualms about telling friends or coworkers of how they cheated, lied to, or stole from others. When thoughtful persons hear this, they know that because the person was willing to mistreat others in the past, he will almost certainly mistreat them in the future if he perceives a similar benefit to be gained from it.

As a result, they view the person as a threat and danger. If they are smart, they will not trust or associate with him. At the very least, they will not do so in situations offering him a chance to defraud or otherwise harm them.

In an work environment, the person's ability to obtain raises and promotions is thereby reduced. His continued employment may be jeopardized. And in his personal life, the ability to develop meaningful relationships is restricted.

Because of the possible undesirable consequences of mistreating others, it is not in a person's long-term interest to do so.

Love for Others

Besides avoiding the wrath of those who have been mistreated, nontheists behave morally for a more positive reason: their love for others such as family and friends.

For normal people, such love is a source of great pleasure and satisfaction. And hate produces the opposite feelings.

Love for others includes a desire to see that the objects of the love are happy. Fulfilling the desire often entails unselfishness and self-sacrifice. When done in a spirit of love, those efforts can be quite pleasurable to the one making them.

As Albert Einstein said: "From the standpoint of daily life . . . there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men - above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends."

Love for others likewise includes pain in seeing their unhappiness. Work and self-denial stem from a desire to avoid that pain.

Thus, caring and helpful behavior results from the pleasure of feeling love for others and the motivations naturally accompanying the feeling.

Emotional and Physical Benefits

Nontheists also have reasons for doing good to those they do not know and probably never will know. Recent research indicates a person's emotional and physical health can improve by performing good works.

As explained in Allan Luks's book The Healing Power of Doing Good, science is revealing that helping others can produce many benefits for the helper. The benefits include, but are not limited to, experiencing a "helper's high" involving an initial rush of good feelings followed by a longer-lasting period of emotional well-being.

Emotional benefits of being kind to others are similarly described in Dr. Richard Carlson's book Don't Sweat the Small Stuff. "Perhaps the greatest reason to practice random kindness is that it brings great contentment into your life," he says. "Each act of kindness rewards you with positive feelings and reminds you of the important aspects of life - service, kindness, and love."

These benefits make sense in terms of human evolutionary history. Early societies that were able to develop compassion, altruism, and cooperation would have had a competitive advantage over those that didn't. As Charles Darwin said: "Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected."

Thomas Jefferson and Nontheistic Morality

Based on some of these reasons for behaving ethically, Thomas Jefferson assured his nephew Peter Carr that belief in God is not necessary for morality.

In a letter to the young man, Jefferson advised: "Fix Reason firmly in her seat . . . . Question with boldness even the existence of a God . . . . Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."

[For further information on this subject, please see the essay titled "Religion, Nontheism and Unethical Behavior."]
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/moralit...t_religion.htm

Indeed, religion incites higher incidents of criminal behaviour and lesser moral virtue than those sho do not have religion. While Stalin was an Athiest he didn't act in the "name of" Athiesm and neither did Hitler(and it is debatable where he stood anyway).

Religion, Nontheism and Unethical Behavior

As support for their argument that atheism leads to immorality, some religionists quote Voltaire. He said about atheism: "Even if not as baleful as fanaticism, it is nearly always fatal to virtue."

Although Voltaire made many great statements, modern research shows he was wrong in assuming that disbelief in God causes unethical behavior.

In the book The Psychology of Religion, which is used in college courses, authors Bernard Spilka, Ralph W. Hood Jr., and Richard Gorsuch state: "Most studies show that conventional religion is not an effective force for moral behavior or against criminal activity."

The same authors cite studies showing higher rates of religious affiliation among criminals and juvenile delinquents than among the rest of the population.

Alfie Kohn of Psychology Today summarizes the results of many years of research. He says: "What . . . can we surmise about the likelihood of someone's being caring and generous, loving and helpful, just from knowing that he or she is a believer? Virtually nothing, say psychologists, sociologists, and others who have studied that question for decades."

Kohn also mentions a 1975 study of college students. It found that the temptation to cheat on an exam was resisted by a greater percentage of atheist students than religious students.

Throughout history, many persons of exemplary character and some of the greatest benefactors of humanity were either disbelievers or skeptics on the issue of God's existence. Examples include Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Luther Burbank, Clarence Darrow, and John Stuart Mill.

In fact, Mill wrote in the nineteenth century: "It is historically true that a large proportion of infidels in all ages have been persons of distinguished integrity and honor."

On the other hand, the ranks of the God-believers have included numerous evildoers. Among them have been slaveholders; Inquisitors; Crusaders; conquistadors; witch-burners; Nazis; Ku Klux Klansmen; child molesters; wife beaters; and many corrupt and cruel politicians and rulers, including Hitler and Mussolini.

The Founders of the U.S. knew firsthand the lack of correlation between religious belief and desirable behavior. During the Revolutionary War, they saw that not only members of many different religious denominations but also nonbelievers were willing to fight and die for American independence.

And numerous religious people - both ministers and laypersons - opposed the American Revolution and worked to subvert it. Many of these pious Tories wanted the Founders defeated and hanged as traitors to the king of England.

Not surprisingly, then, the Founders provided in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution that there shall be no religious test for any public office.

George Washington was opposed to religious discrimination in business, too. In seeking to hire mechanics for his estate, he wrote to his agent: "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."

During the 1930s, Nazi Germany had more religious affiliation than any other country in Europe. Aside from the Jews, almost the entire German population was composed of Lutherans and Catholics. But religion didn't prevent Germany from starting World War II and carrying out the Holocaust.

In the civil rights movement during the 1950s and 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. and other leaders welcomed the participation of persons from all religions and denominations, and also the nonreligious. King's personal attorney, Stanley Levison, was a white nonobservant Jew and an atheist.

The idealistic Levison provided legal services to the movement free of charge. Rather than reject or distrust Levison, who was a lifelong friend, King would gently rib him by saying, "You believe in God, Stan. You just don't know it."

Former Republican U.S. Senator John Danforth, who is an Episcopal priest and was appointed by President George W. Bush to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, also recognized there is no necessary correlation between religiosity and ethics.

Danforth said: "Plenty of kind, decent, caring people have no religious beliefs, and they act out of the goodness of their hearts. Conversely, plenty of people who profess to be religious, even those who worship regularly, show no particular interest in the world beyond themselves."

There now exists overwhelming proof that moral character cannot validly be judged based on disbelief in God. To assert otherwise is to promote religious prejudice against nonbelievers.

And this prejudice maligns millions of loyal, honest, and productive Americans in a manner that would be deemed totally unacceptable if directed against other religious minorities.

In the interest of fairness, religionists who cite Voltaire should also mention his description of Christianity as "the most infamous superstition that has ever degraded man." And he said that "for 1700 years the Christian sect has done nothing but harm."

Voltaire was a deist who had a low opinion of both Christianity and atheism. http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/religio...l_behavior.htm

PS this is no attack on religion - I know plenty of terrific people of all sorts of faiths from Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, Christians and a great Wicken woman I know.

There are certainly some fine teachings in the religious books but to me they all generally follow the golden rule of treat others how you want to be treated. They may create ten rules on a slab but in the end they don't say more than the golden rule (which I find somewhat humorously redundant) and the golden rule was around thousands of years before the bible (unless you're in the "the earth is 6000 year's old camp and then we'll say hundreds of years before the bible).

[blackraven]

Wondering out loud, how did we get off topic here and turn this into a debate about religion, Hmm?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T

No one needs a book to live morally or ethically by. In fact, it is far easier to argue that the Bible and Koran have wholly horrible lessons of morality, ethics, sado-masichism (and not the fun kind with your local dominatrix).

Here is why.

Morality Without Religion

Humanists often hear the charge that without belief in God there is no basis for morality and thus "anything goes." Actually, most nonbelievers have strong foundations for living ethically.

Self-Defense

As the great nineteenth-century agnostic Robert Ingersoll often explained, one basis for nontheistic morality is simply the idea of self-defense.

Because nontheists do not want to be murdered, robbed, raped, or otherwise injured, they support laws prohibiting those types of harmful acts.

By the same token, their desire to be treated fairly, honestly, and respectfully leads them to advocate laws and rules of conduct that promote fair, honest, and respectful treatment of people.

In this manner, the idea of self-defense produces a just system of laws and social standards.

Enlightened Self-Interest

Another basis for nontheistic morality is the principle of enlightened self-interest. Under this principle, it makes perfectly good sense for a person to treat others kindly and helpfully. The treatment will likely cause them to reciprocate with similar behavior, thereby increasing the person's happiness.

Conversely, if a person treats people selfishly and abusively, he will likely be worse off in the long run. Sooner or later, the victims will realize the injustice being done to them. The usual response is to retaliate against, ostracize, or otherwise punish the wrongdoer.

And it is not just the victims who recognize the wrongdoer as a dangerous person who should be avoided. Those who witness or learn about the wrongdoing are likely to feel the same way.

For instance, some people have no qualms about telling friends or coworkers of how they cheated, lied to, or stole from others. When thoughtful persons hear this, they know that because the person was willing to mistreat others in the past, he will almost certainly mistreat them in the future if he perceives a similar benefit to be gained from it.

As a result, they view the person as a threat and danger. If they are smart, they will not trust or associate with him. At the very least, they will not do so in situations offering him a chance to defraud or otherwise harm them.

In an work environment, the person's ability to obtain raises and promotions is thereby reduced. His continued employment may be jeopardized. And in his personal life, the ability to develop meaningful relationships is restricted.

Because of the possible undesirable consequences of mistreating others, it is not in a person's long-term interest to do so.

Love for Others

Besides avoiding the wrath of those who have been mistreated, nontheists behave morally for a more positive reason: their love for others such as family and friends.

For normal people, such love is a source of great pleasure and satisfaction. And hate produces the opposite feelings.

Love for others includes a desire to see that the objects of the love are happy. Fulfilling the desire often entails unselfishness and self-sacrifice. When done in a spirit of love, those efforts can be quite pleasurable to the one making them.

As Albert Einstein said: "From the standpoint of daily life . . . there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men - above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends."

Love for others likewise includes pain in seeing their unhappiness. Work and self-denial stem from a desire to avoid that pain.

Thus, caring and helpful behavior results from the pleasure of feeling love for others and the motivations naturally accompanying the feeling.

Emotional and Physical Benefits

Nontheists also have reasons for doing good to those they do not know and probably never will know. Recent research indicates a person's emotional and physical health can improve by performing good works.

As explained in Allan Luks's book The Healing Power of Doing Good, science is revealing that helping others can produce many benefits for the helper. The benefits include, but are not limited to, experiencing a "helper's high" involving an initial rush of good feelings followed by a longer-lasting period of emotional well-being.

Emotional benefits of being kind to others are similarly described in Dr. Richard Carlson's book Don't Sweat the Small Stuff. "Perhaps the greatest reason to practice random kindness is that it brings great contentment into your life," he says. "Each act of kindness rewards you with positive feelings and reminds you of the important aspects of life - service, kindness, and love."

These benefits make sense in terms of human evolutionary history. Early societies that were able to develop compassion, altruism, and cooperation would have had a competitive advantage over those that didn't. As Charles Darwin said: "Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected."

Thomas Jefferson and Nontheistic Morality

Based on some of these reasons for behaving ethically, Thomas Jefferson assured his nephew Peter Carr that belief in God is not necessary for morality.

In a letter to the young man, Jefferson advised: "Fix Reason firmly in her seat . . . . Question with boldness even the existence of a God . . . . Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."

[For further information on this subject, please see the essay titled "Religion, Nontheism and Unethical Behavior."]
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/moralit...t_religion.htm

Indeed, religion incites higher incidents of criminal behaviour and lesser moral virtue than those sho do not have religion. While Stalin was an Athiest he didn't act in the "name of" Athiesm and neither did Hitler(and it is debatable where he stood anyway).

Religion, Nontheism and Unethical Behavior

As support for their argument that atheism leads to immorality, some religionists quote Voltaire. He said about atheism: "Even if not as baleful as fanaticism, it is nearly always fatal to virtue."

Although Voltaire made many great statements, modern research shows he was wrong in assuming that disbelief in God causes unethical behavior.

In the book The Psychology of Religion, which is used in college courses, authors Bernard Spilka, Ralph W. Hood Jr., and Richard Gorsuch state: "Most studies show that conventional religion is not an effective force for moral behavior or against criminal activity."

The same authors cite studies showing higher rates of religious affiliation among criminals and juvenile delinquents than among the rest of the population.

Alfie Kohn of Psychology Today summarizes the results of many years of research. He says: "What . . . can we surmise about the likelihood of someone's being caring and generous, loving and helpful, just from knowing that he or she is a believer? Virtually nothing, say psychologists, sociologists, and others who have studied that question for decades."

Kohn also mentions a 1975 study of college students. It found that the temptation to cheat on an exam was resisted by a greater percentage of atheist students than religious students.

Throughout history, many persons of exemplary character and some of the greatest benefactors of humanity were either disbelievers or skeptics on the issue of God's existence. Examples include Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Luther Burbank, Clarence Darrow, and John Stuart Mill.

In fact, Mill wrote in the nineteenth century: "It is historically true that a large proportion of infidels in all ages have been persons of distinguished integrity and honor."

On the other hand, the ranks of the God-believers have included numerous evildoers. Among them have been slaveholders; Inquisitors; Crusaders; conquistadors; witch-burners; Nazis; Ku Klux Klansmen; child molesters; wife beaters; and many corrupt and cruel politicians and rulers, including Hitler and Mussolini.

The Founders of the U.S. knew firsthand the lack of correlation between religious belief and desirable behavior. During the Revolutionary War, they saw that not only members of many different religious denominations but also nonbelievers were willing to fight and die for American independence.

And numerous religious people - both ministers and laypersons - opposed the American Revolution and worked to subvert it. Many of these pious Tories wanted the Founders defeated and hanged as traitors to the king of England.

Not surprisingly, then, the Founders provided in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution that there shall be no religious test for any public office.

George Washington was opposed to religious discrimination in business, too. In seeking to hire mechanics for his estate, he wrote to his agent: "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."

During the 1930s, Nazi Germany had more religious affiliation than any other country in Europe. Aside from the Jews, almost the entire German population was composed of Lutherans and Catholics. But religion didn't prevent Germany from starting World War II and carrying out the Holocaust.

In the civil rights movement during the 1950s and 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. and other leaders welcomed the participation of persons from all religions and denominations, and also the nonreligious. King's personal attorney, Stanley Levison, was a white nonobservant Jew and an atheist.

The idealistic Levison provided legal services to the movement free of charge. Rather than reject or distrust Levison, who was a lifelong friend, King would gently rib him by saying, "You believe in God, Stan. You just don't know it."

Former Republican U.S. Senator John Danforth, who is an Episcopal priest and was appointed by President George W. Bush to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, also recognized there is no necessary correlation between religiosity and ethics.

Danforth said: "Plenty of kind, decent, caring people have no religious beliefs, and they act out of the goodness of their hearts. Conversely, plenty of people who profess to be religious, even those who worship regularly, show no particular interest in the world beyond themselves."

There now exists overwhelming proof that moral character cannot validly be judged based on disbelief in God. To assert otherwise is to promote religious prejudice against nonbelievers.

And this prejudice maligns millions of loyal, honest, and productive Americans in a manner that would be deemed totally unacceptable if directed against other religious minorities.

In the interest of fairness, religionists who cite Voltaire should also mention his description of Christianity as "the most infamous superstition that has ever degraded man." And he said that "for 1700 years the Christian sect has done nothing but harm."

Voltaire was a deist who had a low opinion of both Christianity and atheism. http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/religio...l_behavior.htm

PS this is no attack on religion - I know plenty of terrific people of all sorts of faiths from Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, Christians and a great Wicken woman I know.

There are certainly some fine teachings in the religious books but to me they all generally follow the golden rule of treat others how you want to be treated. They may create ten rules on a slab but in the end they don't say more than the golden rule (which I find somewhat humorously redundant) and the golden rule was around thousands of years before the bible (unless you're in the "the earth is 6000 year's old camp and then we'll say hundreds of years before the bible).

Richard,
There is nothing in this overly long diatribe that changes anything I have said. The Bible is not the issue, it is what people have done with it that is. Nobody makes a non believer a believer, everyone has a choice if they want to believe or not, with no prejudice involved.

The bottom line is this, humans are not perfect creatures, and will never be as long as they live on this earth. Even if you are a believer, you are not perfect, and many of us(and I mean me)are far from perfect. We are subject to our human characteristics as much as the non believer is.

Lastly, I don't believe I ever forwarded the notion that being a believer made anyone more or less moral than a non believer. So I do not quite understand the lecture.

[RGA]

Sir T

You proposed the notion that "the Bible is a very good book to live by" and I think it's a rather dangerous book to live by. With or without [religion], you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics.

The problem is there are too many examples of poor morality, a dictatorial cruel vengeful God, and full of intolerance. This is the last book that should be used to put forth a good and moral society or individual because many people merely will "be good" because they fear the punishment rather than "being good" for the sake of it or because you want to go to heaven over hell.

The list of subtle problems in our world is largely due to religion. Who cares about being green - God will fix it and we can do with the planet as we see fit. Besides this world doesn't matter because it's the next world that counts (people are less likely to see the beauty of what we have on this planet because they're waiting for the next world to be "perfect".

It's endless how many things people can take from the same book and twist any which way they wish. Other religious followers will blame the people interpreting it wrong while they themselves will be doing other daft things. Christians will make fun of Scientologists for believing pretty nutty things like aliens being stuffed into volcanoes or magic pants(or is that Mormons?) and never once look at how Christianity is patently absurd.

"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

See that is as prepsterous as Scientology the only difference between the fact that one is considered a cult and the other is a religion is the size of membership. Cult are dangerous bigger cults are more dangerous.

People who will thank God for surviving their car accident or God for saving them on the operating table. No thank the damn Doctor who learned SCIENCE and the engineers at Volvo for placing the right roll cage, electronic stability control, ABS and airbag and seatbelt restraint system properly into the vehicle using SCIENCE! And don't blame Gays because there was a flood in New Orleans because you read that God will smite thee for not following his "so called" teachings that gays should be stoned to death.

No rational person can actually read the bible and think it is anything other than a pile of tripe. People who are otherwise intelligent were unfortunately programmed from birth with relentless propaganda brainwashing. Most of us believed in Santa Claus who is as equally preposterous as any "God" and we believed in him as strongly as we believed our parents were in the room. But when the story was eventually cracked and our parents told us the truth (or the local town Atheist), we all had a chuckle that we ever believed in such a silly person and story. Sadly, that same thing with God is in fact the SAME thing - but the parents never let their kids in on the secret and the Atheists were probably stoned or burned at the stake for uttering the link. They have a lot of brainwashed followers to support them and if you have a lot of support on a belief (like Jews being inferior rodents) it's far easier psychologically to go along with the "group think" because if most people believe it it must in fact be true. Even when it's not. Psych tests have been done on behaviour for decades that can get otherwise normal folks to do rather terrible thing under a group mentality and religion is certainly a "group mentality' if ever there was any.

That to me is a dangerous thing to follow and that belief ripples through to things like Stem Cell research, doubting FACTS like evolution or the Big Bang which are on par with being proven to the same degree that gravity is just a theory. Following that book makes society a lot dumber, less truly moral, and "possibly" very dangerous.

Ultimately, I fear religion because it tends to get into government and winds up making decisions not based in logic. As Bill Maher noted under George Bush the types of people who were being appointed to critical positions of power. Appointments made for cult/religious followers over people who were actually inteligent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0sNJ...eature=related

[Feanor]

...
There is nothing in this overly long diatribe that changes anything I have said. The Bible is not the issue, it is what people have done with it that is. Nobody makes a non believer a believer, everyone has a choice if they want to believe or not, with no prejudice involved.

...

The Islamic position on the Bible is interesting. My (perhaps imperfect understanding) is thatn Muslim have a big issue with the Bible, specifically the Jewish Bible or Old Testiment. Unlike Christians who soak up every word of the Old Testiment as "gospel" (so to speak), Muslims feel that document is fundamentally Jewish propaganda which distorts the true message of God to justify the Jewish self-image as choosen people, (Jewish exceptionalism), and the Hebrew rape of Palestine in accient times, and by extension, the Zionist occupation of that land today.

I agree with RGA that there is no clear link between personal morality and religious belief -- atheists, or "nontheists" if you prefer, are as likely to be good people as religionists. I personally believe that human morality, (altruism, mutual concern & cooperation), was and is founded in evolutionary necessity. At the same time, though, I think selfishness also has had an evolutionary role, in as much it hasn't been eliminated from the gene poll. Major part of the human struggle is related to finding a balance between the two. Today more than ever I think the balance needs to be pushed to the mutual cooperation side.

Some times religion is cloak for the worst sort of hatred and hypocracy. For example, we have the Jihadists, essentially terrorists, and the Islamists, essentially an ideological political movement, (neither representing main-stream Muslim opinion). On the other side we have Christian Fundamentalists (of various ilk) and the "Christian Right" (which is an oxymoron if ever there was one). The irony is these people are typically the same sort of self-righteous moral legalists who Jesus condemed as hypocrits in his own day. If there is a hell, (which there isn't), these people will be going there.

[Mr Peabody]

Sir T

You proposed the notion that "the Bible is a very good book to live by" and I think it's a rather dangerous book to live by. With or without [religion], you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics.

The problem is there are too many examples of poor morality, a dictatorial cruel vengeful God, and full of intolerance. This is the last book that should be used to put forth a good and moral society or individual because many people merely will "be good" because they fear the punishment rather than "being good" for the sake of it or because you want to go to heaven over hell.

The list of subtle problems in our world is largely due to religion. Who cares about being green - God will fix it and we can do with the planet as we see fit. Besides this world doesn't matter because it's the next world that counts (people are less likely to see the beauty of what we have on this planet because they're waiting for the next world to be "perfect".

It's endless how many things people can take from the same book and twist any which way they wish. Other religious followers will blame the people interpreting it wrong while they themselves will be doing other daft things. Christians will make fun of Scientologists for believing pretty nutty things like aliens being stuffed into volcanoes or magic pants(or is that Mormons?) and never once look at how Christianity is patently absurd.

"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

See that is as prepsterous as Scientology the only difference between the fact that one is considered a cult and the other is a religion is the size of membership. Cult are dangerous bigger cults are more dangerous.

People who will thank God for surviving their car accident or God for saving them on the operating table. No thank the damn Doctor who learned SCIENCE and the engineers at Volvo for placing the right roll cage, electronic stability control, ABS and airbag and seatbelt restraint system properly into the vehicle using SCIENCE! And don't blame Gays because there was a flood in New Orleans because you read that God will smite thee for not following his "so called" teachings that gays should be stoned to death.

No rational person can actually read the bible and think it is anything other than a pile of tripe. People who are otherwise intelligent were unfortunately programmed from birth with relentless propaganda brainwashing. Most of us believed in Santa Claus who is as equally preposterous as any "God" and we believed in him as strongly as we believed our parents were in the room. But when the story was eventually cracked and our parents told us the truth (or the local town Atheist), we all had a chuckle that we ever believed in such a silly person and story. Sadly, that same thing with God is in fact the SAME thing - but the parents never let their kids in on the secret and the Atheists were probably stoned or burned at the stake for uttering the link. They have a lot of brainwashed followers to support them and if you have a lot of support on a belief (like Jews being inferior rodents) it's far easier psychologically to go along with the "group think" because if most people believe it it must in fact be true. Even when it's not. Psych tests have been done on behaviour for decades that can get otherwise normal folks to do rather terrible thing under a group mentality and religion is certainly a "group mentality' if ever there was any.

That to me is a dangerous thing to follow and that belief ripples through to things like Stem Cell research, doubting FACTS like evolution or the Big Bang which are on par with being proven to the same degree that gravity is just a theory. Following that book makes society a lot dumber, less truly moral, and "possibly" very dangerous.

Ultimately, I fear religion because it tends to get into government and winds up making decisions not based in logic. As Bill Maher noted under George Bush the types of people who were being appointed to critical positions of power. Appointments made for cult/religious followers over people who were actually inteligent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0sNJ...eature=related

RGA, this is so full of distortion and untruths I wouldn't even know where to begin to set it straight, I see this is your debate tactic on everything not just Audio Note. Believing in god is no more stupid or irrational than you following Bill Marr or some of the other men you quoted.

[JoeE SP9]

RGA, in this area we are in total agreement.

[Feanor]

Once you realize that there is no God, all religion, and all religious controversies, seems utterly absurd.

As for the Bible, the God of the Old Testament is jealous, vengefully, and genocidal. This is add odds with the New Testament portrayal of God is merciful and loves all people. When exactly did He have this change of mind? The two Gods remain fundamentally irreconcilable despite ridiculous intellectual contortions that have been applied to contradiction. It's appalling the so many Christians seem to prefer the Old Testament to the New -- it tells you something about them.

[Mr Peabody]

Once you realize that there is no God, all religion, and all religious controversies, seems utterly absurd.

As for the Bible, the God of the Old Testament is jealous, vengefully, and genocidal. This is add odds with the New Testament portrayal of God is merciful and loves all people. When exactly did He have this change of mind? The two Gods remain fundamentally irreconcilable despite ridiculous intellectual contortions that have been applied to contradiction. It's appalling the so many Christians seem to prefer the Old Testament to the New -- it tells you something about them.

Again, Feanor you show you are trying to talk about a subject you know nothing about. God is the same in the beginning as He is now. God's judgment is warned throughout the New Testament. He loved us from the beginning and continues to do so. The way God spoke to us is one thing that changed, in the beginning He communicated directly with the patriarchs, then He gave the Law to the Jews and now we have the written Word. The Law was a tutor and to show man is not capable of being perfect. There was no provisions for forgiveness of sins in the Law. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice which allows men today to have forgiveness of sin. Christ's birth, teaching and death is the big difference between Old and New Testament. The New Testamant fulfilled so many prophescies from the Old Testament it would be impossible to write without divine guidance.

And, from what statistics do you get your statement from that Christians prefer the Old Testament over the New? This is something you just made up and spouted. The main fault with your fable is any one who actually is a Christian realizes they can't get to salvation without Christ.

[Feanor]

Again, Feanor you show you are trying to talk about a subject you know nothing about. God is the same in the beginning as He is now. God's judgment is warned throughout the New Testament. He loved us from the beginning and continues to do so. The way God spoke to us is one thing that changed, in the beginning He communicated directly with the patriarchs, then He gave the Law to the Jews and now we have the written Word. The Law was a tutor and to show man is not capable of being perfect. There was no provisions for forgiveness of sins in the Law. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice which allows men today to have forgiveness of sin. Christ's birth, teaching and death is the big difference between Old and New Testament. The New Testament fulfilled so many prophecies from the Old Testament it would be impossible to write without divine guidance.

And, from what statistics do you get your statement from that Christians prefer the Old Testament over the New? This is something you just made up and spouted. The main fault with your fable is any one who actually is a Christian realizes they can't get to salvation without Christ.

Please Mr P, if you must instruct me, email.

I am certainly not ignorant of the Bible having received reasonable instruction in my youth and having read Christian history and theology over many years since then. The difference between you and me is that my thinking and interpretation has been liberated from pious conventions that extract into texts what the believers want to believe. ("A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".)

I understand very well the "new dispensation" concepts. Incidentally, Calvin and other Reform theologians believed that the Jews could receive redemption through the earlier dispensation, that is, adherence to the Covenant that God made with the Jews. However neither Jews nor Muslims put the same emphasis on sin-redemption in the first place, and certainly not the same emphasis on the need for unattainable perfection which, according to Christian theology, requires God's special granting of Grace through the death & resurrection of Christ. Instead, they see the problem as alienation from God. For that matter, many Jews do not believe in Heaven or the afterlife.

Sorry, Mr P, I have no statistics about preference for the Old Testament over the New. But I certainly have the impression, though, from hearing about the conservative Christian attitudes towards morality on many issues. As an example, the attitude that abortion is abhorrent under any circumstances, yet contraception is immoral and that there ought to be no public funding of sex education (on the one side of the problem) nor support for single mothers (on the other side of it). These people are no different at all from the Pharisees of the Gospels whom Christ condemned.

[Feanor]

Wondering out loud, how did we get off topic here and turn this into a debate about religion, Hmm?

Ha! BR. Obviously it's because of the moral issue of compassion versus tough love=tough luck. But it is all my fault because I happened to mention, (in case anyone would care), that Jesus taught compassion. I suppose that makes me a damned hypocrite because I'm a "nontheist".

[3LB]

think I'll PM Worf and tell him to skip page 2