Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H

People say nice things about each other. We feel that many of these things are hypocritical. Let us examine this issue. What you read may make you more cynical but it will certainly help you be more cynical about the God belief and its followers.
The following sayings are condemned as evil but are only evil if free will is true. But still they show the hypocrisy and saccharine selfishness that is rife in the Church and society. For religion to be so hypocritical is bad enough but when they invent a perfect God to endure all this hypocrisy and to endure it being offered up to him it is far worse. The God belief makes hypocrites worse not better.


"You may need to feed the serial killer to stop him dying in agony. Some will say it does not matter at this point what he has done."


But surely that is saying it does not matter about the people he killed? In fact what did always matters but this thing is not about it. The proper attitude is that it does matter but this is another subject and starving him is not going to help justice take its course.
"A: John has treated me really badly and is slagging me off everywhere. I know he is looking at porn while working. Should I tell the boss? B: No because nobody likes or trusts a snitch."
Calling you a snitch implies that you are a bad person just for telling. It is about the telling. It is not about you becoming untrustworthy. It is not about you becoming disliked because that might not necessarily happen or happen to any serious extent. It is really saying people should be allowed to do all the evil they wish and nobody should tell on them.
To say that you must do x because people will dislike you if you don't, is really urging you not to be your own person and to urge you to refuse to allow yourself to be happy should you be unpopular.
It is also urging you to mistrust others by accusing them of being unable to like you and trust you at all if you snitch.
People are liked for doing the occasional mischievous thing.
People can be snitches and still liked.
Plus if you snitch on John, it is he who can't trust you. It has nothing to do with anybody else. You like them and won't hurt them. They can't hurt you like John can so they have nothing to fear.
The moral is that the advice is about acting good but not about being good. It makes an actor of you. It makes a fake of you.
"Okay she wants to put her children up for adoption because she wants to travel the world. But that is her choice."

Saying it is her choice means you don't care what she does to her children. You are glad its her choice for you are glad you don't have to help.  You can tell yourself it is her not you.  Want proof? Think of when you say, "Okay, she wants to have her wedding in winter time. It is her choice". You are clearly saying the same thing but in a different context.
Saying it is her choice is a means of protecting yourself from feeling bad about the terrible things people can do.
Some say they don't want to accuse her of abusing her freedom because accusing her of abusing her freedom is accusing her of self-abuse. And the person who abuses themselves soon abuses others. Others are affected by what you do whether you like it or not so self-abuse is abusing others. But if she is abusing her freedom then why not say so? Why act as if you want to make excuses?
"Two wrongs don't make a right"
This sounds reasonable but it is actually very silly. If I hit person X and X hits me back X is not as bad as me for I proved to X that I deserved it. Two wrongs don't make a right slanders X by making out he is as bad as me!
If I don't take what the law has coming to me I will never learn my lesson.
You can learn your lesson without being punished. Many people argue that you should let the law catch up with a bad person to teach them a lesson. They are hiding their vindictiveness under a platitude. Punishment is not about teaching you what is right and wrong but about paying you back for doing wrong. It is about making sure you don't get the same benefits whether you do right or wrong.
"There is no thanks in x. But don't let that stop you doing good things for him."
Doing good for an ingrate is not good for you or them. The good you do for them is really a source of pain for them. Go and do good for people who will appreciate it. Kindness towards ingrates is a waste and is not kindness at all.

"I couldn't steal or sleep with x's husband. What kind of person would do that?"
This is judging anybody that does just that. It is telling you that you are bad news if you steal or sleep with this man. It is admission that when you say somebody sins or does wrong that your criticism is against the person and is personal.
People who say things like in the bullet point often turn around and start bleating meaningless platitudes such as, "I am a sinner myself so I do not judge the sinner but the sin". This is self-deceit. They say it is wrong to get personal but they are personal. They practice the hypocrisy that is often worse than what the sinner is doing and which is more dangerous.
"Be the bigger person and say hello to John though you have fallen out with one another."
In other words, my claim that all people are equally good is hypocrisy. I am telling you I will consider you better than John if you say hello. I expect John to be silly enough to be impressed at you trying to be better than him. Also, there is a lot more to you than your saying hello to John. There is a lot more to John too. What gives me the right to declare you the bigger person then?
"Why don't you talk to Father Bob about it? He won't judge you. He welcomes people no matter how badly they have behaved."
It is impossible for him not to judge. Judge means to regard an action as bad and to say the person should be punished and if punishment is not possible then its a pity. He will be judging in his mind though he may not say anything. Some of us seem not to mind people judging us as long as they hide it or lie to us pretending that they don't judge. That is another human irrationality. Why do we hate the whole world knowing our private business and judging it when we don't seem to mind a few knowing it? If one or two know then why not let all know? The reason is that we can live with a few judging us to our faces or in the secretive way Father Bob goes about it. If too many people know our business we feel they judge us.
"No person is better than another."

This saying is pure hypocrisy and a lie. Suppose John is wiser than Eve. You may say that Eve is as good as him but in different ways. She may not be as wise but she is kinder.
The view that they are equally good makes no sense if wisdom is better than kindness. Its judgmental. What if a person comes along who is not equal to others in anything?
What use does it do to tell a prisoner he is equal to the good time girl up the road when he is in jail for life?
"Do you think that family in your neighbourhood is a threat to it? Reply - "No comment."
No comment clearly means yes. If the person said why the family is a threat and what it might do at least we would know it may not do worse than what the person says. No comment lets us think what we want 
"If he takes that attitude then he is not worth bothering about. If he doesn't trust you after all this time, then you are doing yourself a favour by dumping him".
That implies that people are only worth knowing if they are very decent. It is very negative. It doesn't take account of the fact that people cannot be all bad. People tell wives or husbands for example that the spouse that hit them is not worth worrying about for hitting them. This is to console the victim. Christians ought to see how it tries to encourage an unloving attitude to comfort. If we listened to that faith and practiced it consistently we would soon be spreading misery.
"I have enough troubles of my own without worrying about the problems of others."


Contradicts the view that God comes first and that others come before you. It is a sin to be absorbed in your own problems. It shows the fundamental nastiness of encouraging faith in God for it gives troubled people a God to worry about!
It is a thoroughly secular and humanistic point of view. It shows that religion is not that important.
If morality comes first, and if having others love God comes first, then it is clear that you should worry about how much the old man across the road loves God and not be worried about how you are going to have everything ready on time for your birthday party.
"I would love to look after my mother if she got sick or was dying."
That is just a boast even if it is true. If everything we do is based on self-interest then you are saying it is your self interest to help your mother - so your compassion is really fake. It is not about you helping her but about you helping yourself with your bad feelings in relation to her suffering. If you do it for her sake and not yours then you won't love it. As long as you love doing it for her and not you you are saying that people should not care about their own rights and if you believe that then you don't have much honour for her and your helping her is done with a bad attitude. It is not about helping her then.
Everything we do could be about our self-interest because even if we do something for another and seek nothing back we are getting back the pleasure of being so altruistic. Believers in altruism say we are being altruistic because we don't look for the happiness - it comes from a side-effect of doing good. If that is true then there is a 50/50 chance that we are being altruistic or non-altruistic. What should be the default position then? Considering how much time we spend thinking of ourselves and how we wouldn't suffer all our lives to spare other people and how we want the side-effect of happiness the default position is that we assume no act is altruistic. Also we want the side-effect of happiness. Not thinking of the happiness in order to be indirectly happy is not altruism but self-interest. We know that the more we want to be happy the more we annoy ourselves and drive it away but if we just forget about the desire then we get the happiness.
"Don't become a prostitute. Its very dangerous. You could get raped or beaten up."
This contradicts the notion that we should think positive and trust and encourage people to work to eliminate risk. Christians urge people to convert to Christianity even in dangerous Islamic countries and yet they would say the above to a woman contemplating prostitution. It makes them look caring and concerned. If they were more honest and were saying, "Our disdain for prostitution isn't about you, but just against the law of Christ that a woman should never prostitute herself - even to a client she knows would never hurt her" the woman would see their true colours. They would have no problem with a wife selling her body to her husband even if he is psycho rapist brute.
The more honest Christians will say that prostitution is not bad because of the results but bad in itself and that it only has bad results because it is bad. This sneaks in the idea, "If you get beaten up lady you brought it on yourself!" The prostitute does not ask for or make any man beat her up or rape her. It is not the prostitution that is to blame.
God is good - according to the Christian faith. We are expected to trust God. It is true that he can let prostitutes get raped and beaten up. But what if he changes? Are we not insulting him then? Would a doctor who made mistakes in the past be respected if people warned his patients that his treatments might go wrong? It insults God.
"I don't want to argue any more for life is too short".
Translation: If I could get over the upset fast and if my life were longer, I would argue. I want to but sadly cannot.
"I wish I could help you. But I can't tell you what you need to know. I have to observe confidentiality."
"Wish I could break this confidentiality but I can't" is the translation.
Perhaps it only means that he wishes it was not confidential and he could tell it? But its confidential for its bad to tell it. Does he mean he wishes it were good to tell it so it wouldn't be confidential any more? No. The context is not about what ifs. It is about the reality. The reality is that he will not tell and he is claiming he regrets that is the reality. He is saying he would like to break the confidentiality but cannot.
Christians praise the man who says the words above though it contradicts their doctrine that one should not desire to do evil. They condemn those who do good with reluctance. Where is the condemnation for this man? Their morality is based on lies and brainwashing. But that basis easily backfires and people end up swallowing lies opposed to the Church's lies.
"I feel so upset that people would burgle my house. It is not what they took. I just don't feel safe in the house anymore."
People say you should think the best you can of everybody and give everybody the benefit of the doubt. If they really believe that then why don't they tell people who say the above, "They didn't mean to hurt you but they just meant to take what they stole. Don't take it so personally. Don't do them the wrong of thinking of them as worse than what they are"? Why don't they protest when the courts sentence them primarily because of the upset they caused? Why don't they blame the victim's attitudes? They are just two-faced. If you love the sinner and hate the sin you will do your best to avoid saying anybody sinned. You will only do it if you get absolute proof that they sinned and were not forced or mentally sick. You will accuse them as leniently as possible.
"He fell and hit his head because he had too much to drink. In the hospital he had the decency to say that he was sorry for giving the hospital and his family this trouble."
So you think he should be sorry for bothering you - how unselfish of you! So he is to be praised for degrading himself by giving in to your selfishness? So the injury would be fine if others didn't get the trouble! What kind of self-respect is that?

In a computer class x is feeling down for y and z completed their exercises no problem and x feels he can't use computers. The tutor tells y and z not to say they got their exercises finished quickly for it makes x feel bad.
Translation: What does x want? For y and z to be as bad as him? Does x want his feelings protected instead of realising that others should not be thought about and he should do his best and forget about their success?
"Please do not bring children on to the premises. We do not take responsibility for injuries to children that may occur."
#Translation: If parents or guardians bring children here and the children are hurt then they shouldn't have brought them here in the first place. This is harsh and unfeeling.
##Translation: If a child is hurt on our premises it is getting no compensation. Tough. No compensation means suffering more. But that is not our problem and we refuse to be bothered. We are sorry but not as sorry as we would be if it were us or our children. Even Jack the Ripper felt a bit sorry for the prostitutes he carved up.
"You will be fine".
We all reassure people by saying this. But God might have other plans and Jesus said that we are not to presume that we know what tomorrow will bring and that it is a sin to. It is the sin of presumption. If we are sinners we don't know we will be fine and so saying to somebody they will be fine is saying they are not sinners.
If it is a problem for an unbeliever in God to say someone will be fine then how much more of a problem is it for a believer to say it? Religion wouldn't last long if it ceased to be so hypocritical.


"I know I should have got the doctor when she was ill. She is dead now. But she would have died anyway. This comforts me."
Translation: Thank goodness she died anyway for it helps me to feel better about what happened.
"Don't be upset at what Clara said to you. She is only jealous of you".
We are all influenced by what the people around us say to us no matter if they are right or wrong.
Jealousy deludes you into seeing faults in the other person that are not there. The jealous person who condemns you is no different in the essential ways from a person who condemns you because they really do see those faults and the faults are there. And you are expected to be upset about critics who have the hurtful truth about you and who are not afraid to say it.
Clara may be jealous but she wants to harm you. To say you should not be upset about that is to say you should not be upset at all when anybody would hurt you for whatever reason.
"He was in a lot of pain. He's at rest now."
Translation: Be glad he is dead. People are better not coming into existence to suffer. People are better dead than suffering too much. You are selfish for mourning him. You are selfish for thinking that a person is so valuable that they should exist even as they suffer.

"I pray that you will get the job"
Translation, I want to influence God to get you the job by making other suitable candidates sick, by killing them, by making their car break down, by making them tired so that they perform badly at the interview, and on. I pray that you get the job regardless of who needs it as much as you or more. I want you to be warmed by me praying for this for you despite all this. I therefore want you to be as bad as me. If you really believe God does what he wills you will feel no different if I pray or not for God does what he pleases. You are pleased when I pray for you for you feel that prayer is twisting God's arm and controlling him.
"John: Your dad hit my son. He is only a little boy. I am going to the police. Ann: Please don't, if that comes out he will lose his job and we will have to go into care. John: All right but if he touches my son again I am going to the police".
Translation, It is wrong and cruel if I go to the police. But if he touches my boy again I will do this wrong and cruel thing. Condone me by thanking me for my mercy.
If he hits my boy again even if he doesn't hurt him as much as he did before I will get him punished.

"I know Jethro has done wrong to you. But you better not say anything about it to him. It would only lead to a falling out."
If Jethro falls out with you because you stand up to him then he is not a true friend anyway and is no loss.
If you think Jethro would fall out with you for standing up to him then you have a very low opinion of him and it is no loss to him if he never has anything to do with you.
"Faith in others is a good thing."
A person will be happier if you love them because you know them and not because you have faith in them. To know is to be sure. To have faith is to have a lesser degree of sureness. It is to be less sure. Faith is a necessary evil. It is not a good thing.
Jane is friends with Anna. She sees Ernie, Anna's husband, with another woman. She informs Anna. People may say, "She was only interested in splitting up that marriage. She was always jealous of how happy Anna and Ernie were."
If she was jealous that does not mean her main motive was to satisfy this jealousy. She might have enjoyed imparting the bad news but the jealousy could have been a lesser motive than her wish to help Anna by telling her the truth.
To say she was only interested in causing trouble is to judge her as being totally jealous. It is a false and exaggerated judgement. Who can know it was her only motive? To say she was chiefly interested in causing trouble doesn't make much of a difference. Yet these assumptions must be made if her action is to be condemned.
If Jane can't do it for any main reason except for jealousy the Church forbids her to tell. Jealous acts are sinful. The Church is concerned about the morality but not about Anna.
Society and the Church condemn those who rob banks. They refuse to assume that the robbers wanted the money to better life for their children. They judge like that. They make assumptions. And then they claim to be acting and thinking lovingly towards the robbers!
"I am sorry I dragged it out of you." A girl thinks her lover has cheated on her and she drags what she thinks is the truth out of his best friend. If the friend lies that the lover was doing something nice for her and was not cheating on her she will say, "I am sorry I dragged it out of you."
How could she be sorry when she felt she had to drag it out of him and be sure? She thought he was cheating and needed to know if he was. There is a false wisdom in hindsight even if the hindsight is wrong. People like to think themselves wiser after the event or what they think the event was.
“I don’t want to put you to any trouble”.
Altruism is doing good for others without the least concern for yourself. You would die to do the act if you needed or you would go to Hell forever to do it. The altruist cannot say, “I don’t want to put you to any trouble”, this for his philosophy contends that it is best for everybody to be altruistic. It has to be his will that others be altruistic and put themselves to trouble.

The egoist can desire that other people would not burden themselves for him.
“You should take his wife away from him for if you don’t somebody else will”.
We may find ourselves asked to do something we feel or think is bad for, “if you do not do it somebody else will”.

So, is it all right to steal for somebody else will do it?

Is it good to murder somebody who will be killed soon?
Maybe you are doing the bad person a favour by preventing them from doing wrong by doing it before they get the chance.

But the person wants to do it and has already sinned so letting them do it by not doing it before they do makes no difference. However, you should not do wrong to prevent wrong but do right to prevent wrong.

You are admitting that the act committed by the other person would be wrong but are claiming that this justifies you doing it yourself. This is a denial of human equality. You are saying that you are more important than the other person.

You do not even know if the crime will be committed for the future is a mystery to us. You would be committing a sure evil to prevent a possible evil.

It is better for a person to be willing to steal or murder or whatever than for you to be willing to do the same over that person.
“Calm down a bit. Remember it was not all John’s fault when he slept with your wife. She wasn’t forced to sleep with him”.

That is saying that you should resent both half and half. But when both are equally in the wrong that means that if you should resent John with all your power you should also resent the wife as much. The absence of logicality in the advice shows just how terrible it is to believe in free will. If you deny free will and change your emotions towards bad people as a consequence you will avoid being torn by resentment. 
“You had no business hurting that son of a bitch for he wasn’t harming you”.

Here the person is being condemned for hurting somebody who deserved to be hurt. The vast majority of people have a morality that craftily sides with the evil person against the less evil person who attacks him for being evil. They hide it well. Morality is popular because people like to take the high moral ground though they will often alter the rules they were given to suit themselves. They encourage the evil person to take the high moral ground, “He had no business attacking me”, as if he never did the same and worse.

If a person does wrong or what many only see as wrong but which is not other people have a right to dislike it. If you don’t care about right and wrong except when it happens to you then you are living and practicing egotism and not egoism. As long as you are okay to hell with everybody else. Strictly speaking, it is an uncaring insult to tell anyone to mind their own business when they castigate what you have done for it does affect them even if you didn’t do it to them.

There is a dilemma then. To say the person shouldn’t have been hurt for he wasn’t hurting you is to say that you not being hurt entitles you to respect him. That means that what he deserves for doing to others doesn’t matter so the others don’t matter. The only way out of the dilemma is to deny free will. That way you can forbid attacks on evil people and not have to make dirt of the perpetrators to do it.

Attacking a person shows just how humble and repentant for their wrongs they really are for they will usually respond with outrage. You will see then that human beings are really selfish and that altruism is just a facade.
“Don’t mock the afflicted for you will/could be afflicted yourself”.

This says that you would not want to be sick so you should act towards the sick with compassion. But you can turn your sickness to your advantage.  Under some conditions you could be glad to be sick. The terminally ill enjoy life better than we do because what time they have left is so precious to them. The saying contradicts the Christian view that sickness can be a gift from God and a good thing. Christianity teaches that God works to turn all evil to good.

The saying presupposes that you should not be sick and others should not be. It suggests that sickness is necessarily bad.
If you are freely cruel to the sick, free of your own free will, then you deserve to be sick so the saying is morally defunct.

Also, how likely is it that you will get the sickness you mock in another person? If it is improbable then the saying becomes useless. All right and wrong depends on the calculation of probability and the saying is denying that. It would only be wrong then to mock if it were probable that you would get the sickness yourself.
Person A, "I should have killed that person when the king asked me to. He said if I did that he would spare the fifteen people. I refused so it is my fault".
Person B, "You are not responsible. Nobody made him do it. You didn't know he was going to really do it."
Reply: You believed he would do it. You knew you would probably be causing the deaths of those other people. You are as responsible as he was. If you had killed the person the others would still be alive.
"I promised my wife I would steal the money. But how could I have the right to keep an evil promise like that?"
Christianity forbids lies. Also it says promises must be kept but you can break promises like that. What about the idea then that the promise must be honoured but it is overridden by something more important than prevents you keeping it. It is like a promise you should keep but cannot. It is like promising John your bicycle but when you are about to give it to him he drops dead. The promise is not broken or dishonoured but prevented. A false promise is bad for the same reason a lie is so Christianity will have to honour bad promises better!
"My sister Mary won't come to my wedding because I am marrying a divorcee and her Catholic faith says my marriage is a mockery of her faith and her God."
Mary expects you to support her faith by supporting her decision not to come to the ceremony. If you know her faith is not true, you are expected to support her all the same. Where is her support for you? Her idea of support would be asking you not to go through the wedding.
The Roman Catholic Church claims the right to cause upset and division. It bars Protestants from its altar. What right has a religion to do this when it knows from its moral philosophers that for most things there is just no way to work out what is right and wrong? Any ethics book will tell you that and demonstrate it. The faith is a disgrace.

“Steal from him for he would do that to you”.

But he hasn’t yet. You cannot be sure that he would do it until he does it. Your stealing from him will be something you will be sure has happened. His inclination to steal from you is not so certain. It is illogical to do harm over probable or possible harm for the latter is less certain.   


You don’t do a real harm to avoid or dodge a possible one.
These days it is common for people to perform actions that they believe to be wrong because everybody else is doing them. But wrong is still wrong no matter how many do it. Evil is increased the more people do wrong not decreased.
“I feel sorry for John for he had to leave his job and he was not the only one doing wrong”.

If John did wrong he has to pay for it. The others getting away with it has nothing to do with it or him and does not justify you feeling sorry for him. The assertion implies that we should feel bad if somebody is caught doing wrong and yet those who would say such a thing are glad to see many types of criminal caught.
“I’m only thinking of you”.

When a person wants to go and tell the boss off for letting bullying go on in the workplace and risk getting fired a friend will advise against it and say he or she is only thinking of her or him. In other words, it does not matter as much about the others as about her or him. This is elitism. Falling in love leads to it too.
“We are all ageing and will die. You are not alone and that is the consolation.”

Translates as: “You should be glad that others will have the same terrible fate as you”. It is hard to beat that for selfishness. Others enduring suffering similar to you should disturb you more than you already are, not less. The saying which is a soft way of advising people to be glad that others suffer too is something we all agree with and it proves that human nature is not selfless at all and is selfish in being selfless for being selfless is a pretence. Altruism infers that you should wish only you had this fate and that every other person should wish the same thing to themselves. To tell people that they are not the only ones to have been cruelly dumped by a beloved girlfriend or boyfriend or not the only ones to be laid up with the flu is to grievously insult them and yet it is an insult that is often unnoticed.
“Glad it is them and not us” or “Rather you than me”.
People tend to be more fascinated by bad news than good news. They get more pleasure out of bad news than good news. Why else are the newspapers so popular despite being about human evil and human problems? Do people hate the unfortunates? Possibly, although they do not know them. Some men hate all women though they don’t know all women. Or is it that they are just delighted that the terrible things have happened to others and not them? I am sure of my existence but less sure of that of others. Therefore I am more sure that I deserve to suffer for my sins if I am free than I am that others should suffer. It follows that I ought to wish that it was me instead of them.

Ignoring that, if I am glad that suffering is their experience and not mine then I am glad not I think because they deserve it but because it is their experience and not mine. That is evil and cruel for it is not their fault that they cannot experience what I experience. It is like gloating over a racist attack on a black person not because they deserve it but because they are not of my race. I do hate them if I let myself feel relieved that it is not me.
People who are sick in hospital with pneumonia or some other illness feel grateful and are asked to feel grateful that they are not one of the worse off patients such as cancer patients or so on. They are happy that others are suffering and not them. What kind of love of neighbour as oneself is that?
"Be grateful for your lot for there are people worse off"

This adage is very basic to the world's "morality".
If people really believe it then why don't they tell bullied students to continue at a school though they would be safer elsewhere?
Imagine if you told somebody who had cancer that there are people worse off? 
If people want to make the adage real for you when they pray for you then they should keep their prayers.
“What’s done is done”.
You cannot change the past. What is done is done but people use the cliché to justify forgiveness. The cliché aspires towards condemning people for being punitive but it upholds a double standard when it allows rewards for good works which are in the past and cannot be reversed either. Forgiveness cannot be granted on the grounds that the past is immutable and unalterable for it would be malice to pardon a person based on such a deceitful and unfair standard. Malicious forgiveness is a contradiction.

“I feel sorry for Fr Paul. I know he covered up for priests abusing children but it is so hard on him and he can’t undo the past.”

Compassion is an unpleasant feeling and should be reserved for the most deserving people. Why degrade yourself to lament for Fr Paul when there are babies starving in the world? Transfer your energy to that cause. Paul is stealing your compassion for he certainly wants it.
Given that most people believe in free will and hold that nobody is innocent and that punishment is for your own good and still have compassion for one another so that they have mercy we see that compassion in the context of saying that the past cannot be changed no and so what? is clearly saying the sin does not matter. If it does not matter then the criminal should be apologised to by society for they made a fuss about laws being broken and then they turn around and make out they never mattered. How could you have compassion on people who deserve to suffer? People say you can’t punish everybody so you have to have pity and forgive but why not just not punish instead of forgiving? Forgiveness given because you can’t punish is grudging and is not forgiveness but only looks like it. You would not be loving yourself as much as your neighbour if you let yourself get upset or think you should get upset over somebody that deserves to suffer. Many Humanists luckily deny free will for free will implies that compassion is always evil. It means the criminal can take no satisfaction in people’s compassion for he knows they are having it because they are made that way and not because it is right. It’s false. The love your neighbour as yourself doctrine as taught by God, Moses and Jesus is just a call to be false and two-faced and self-deceiving.
“If you won’t go and get those chest pains seen to for yourself then do it for me”.
That is telling the person to love you more than himself. It shows how wrong and hypocritical the early Christians and Jesus were to say that love your neighbour as yourself was the basic rule of morality.
“I like Adam. Any harm he did he did it to himself”.
So Adam is good because he harms himself not you? That is loving yourself more than your neighbour. If you loved your neighbour as yourself you would be as opposed to his harming himself as you would be you.
“Please go out and make friends for your own sake.”
The person that says this is taken to be an altruist. But is it altruism to tell people to make friends to avoid having a bad life for themselves? Of course not! It is telling people to have friends not for the sake of the friends but for their own.
Son says, “Mammy the Protestant woman over the road called me a Papist scumbag.”

Mother says, “Son, ignore her. She is the one with a problem”.
If you are to hate the sin as Jesus said, - he said you are better losing limbs than sinning - you have to worry about it even if you can’t do anything about it.
If you care about the woman, and she has a problem, she needs help or counsel and the advice is really saying that she should be left with her problem even though it could make her do evil again.
Also, not to care is not to care about the woman. If everybody took that kind of advice, nobody could be described as bullied. They would be to blame for how they respond emotionally to the abuse so that it is really them doing damage to themselves not the bully.
An altruist cannot give this advice.
Neither can an egoist. The woman if she values her son because he is her’s will be egoistic in relation to him. But to say hatred should be ignored is to go against that egoism. It is really egotism on her part.
"I got a reward from Mr Chamberlain. It was $1,000. I found his briefcase with a million dollars in it. He is so kindly." 
When you think, you can notice things, things that we just turn a blind eye to. You can see how much we invent our morality. Say people have free will. If they do they deserve blessings and or punishments. I am about to lose a vast fortune. Some person does something, foil robbers or something, that results in me keeping it. I would have lost all the money without that person. That person is entitled to half the money in justice for that is what he or she deserves. But the Church never supported this view which shows that it invents its love and its justice and twists everything so a religion that opposes love and justice as it must see them is hardly likely to be a channel of real revelations from a good God. As deniers of free will, we don’t accept that half of what is gained must be parted with.

She had a baby and she wasn't married. She is no better than a whore. She is a whore that sold herself for nothing!
This insults all women who sell themselves. What about the woman who sells herself once to get food for her baby? These words are insulting her and judging her.
If you believe that prostitution is always wrong and that a prostitute is a whore then it must be worse to give your body for nothing than to give it for money to survive on. Then you are entitled to call an unwed mum a whore even to her face for it is the truth. She might not like it but society approves of loads of things being said to people that they don't like. For example, what teenager wants to hear that his or her homework is very bad? Plus would it make sense for the woman not to be offended by, "You had sex and had a baby and you were not married," and offended by being called a whore when that means the same thing?

"I wrote that textbook to help people and not for praise."
If you didn't write it for overt praise, you wrote it that people would have a good opinion of your work which is the same as them having a good opinion of you. You didn't write the textbook for the sake of writing the textbook. You wrote it to please people and so that they would praise it. You also wrote it to praise yourself. You wrote it for praise after all.