Does one truly believe that our existence is simply due to chance? To the flip of a coin?

To not believe that is to deny basic biology. You are you because one sperm happened to swim faster than a lot of others.

To believe god personally leant down with his white beard trailing and pointed at "you" implies a huge (and dangerous) conceit and self-importance.

And religious societies are dysfunctional societies societies, with
higher "rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality".

i don't believe in a god and i'm not a murderous or even unkind person...i've raised up three kids without bestowing religion upon them and they are kind, compassionate people...
indeed it is dangerous to be so conceited and self-important as to rely upon any external thing for anything...it leads to and has led to many persons shunning credit for the great things they've accomplished and many others shunning responsibility for the horrid things they've done...
we can never hope to overcome our greatest liabilities and fears nor aspire to the greatest achievements possible when we forever seek to avoid blame or credit for what we do and for what we do to each other...

I disagree completely. Believing in god doesn't make one behave ethically. Plenty of Nazis were fervent believers in god. The hatred of jews in Europe in fact started with the church.

Fear is not the impetus to learning. Man is not craven and wretched as Christianity would have you believe.

A pundit once observed that those who don't believe in God find belief in astrology or communicating with the dead.

This is really lousy writing. You can find all kinds of idiotic quotes and "Joe Schmo once said" examples to back up any bogus hypothesis.

I'm sure there are people who don't believe in God but do believe in astrology, and vice versa. You are just providing two examples of archaic wishful thinking. What's yer point?

This is a dreadful example of someone bending the facts to suit their dogma. For shame.

In response to point 5, my point is very clear. Men and women need something to believe in, and if it is an supreme being; it will be something else. Some may find belief in astrology, others some from of human ism.

Do I believe that not believing in God makes one a craven homicial manic? No but the 20th century has shown that those societies that have try to extermine God from the Public square have been even more murderous than those Christian states of the Middle Ages could ever imagine. The question that needs to consider is why would societies atheistic to the core be more murderous than those who are not?

As for twisting to fit one dogma, here is a thought that is also historically true. Before 19th century, slavery was world wide but it was Christian activist in Great Britain and the United States that led the movement to abolish it. Without these activists pushing the issue and reminding us of ideals, we may still have slavery as a reality.

So why would Nazis and Communist societies that were in opposition to organized religion killed more people than other societies in history? Could it be that in the 20th century, Christian beliefs actually put some moral restraint on the whole society?

The Nazis had a complicated relationship with both the Catholic church and protestant churches. I think you're wrong in saying they were in opposition to each other. The point is central to your thesis. Can you support your claim with any evidence?

Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin - these guys weren't monsters because they were atheists; they were monsters because they were psychopaths. Religion has nothing to do with it. Some of the most religious people in the world were also murderous monsters of like proportions. Your argument leaks like a sieve.

There has much written on the paganism that influenced Nazism. Most recently, the History Channel has had several specials on the pagan, pre Christian roots of Nazism. There have also been much written on the anti-Christian views of Hitler and the Nazis.

Bonohoffer, the theologian, has written quite a bit on this issue before he was executed by the Nazis in 1945.

Historians such as Paul Johnson have written on the overall impact of atheism and its connection to Nazism and Communism.

I don't know, buddy.
The wars of thr Reformation decimated Europe. In fact, between the wars and the spread of Plague (aided by both trade and the wars), they lost one in three people in about sixty years, didn't they.
When you look at it that way, even with 20th century technology, the atheists couldn't do the same kind of damage.

atheism had as much to do with communism as catholicism had to do with the spanish inquisition...
the only belief system at work in these situations is the belief that "i'm better than you"...
using religion or a lack of belief as the scapegoat shifts the responsibility away from where it belongs: on the people who committed these atrocities...
to this day we continue to blame the belief or a lack of it for all the woes of the world and in so doing continue to ignore the actual and real cause: the person...
get off the religion and get on the person(s) who do the deed...

The idea that you can put the plague, a natural diaster in the same league as systemic murder of millions is a stretch.

Comment 7 posted by tom donelson on October 17, 2005 03:23 PM:
"So why would Nazis and Communist societies that were in opposition to organized religion killed more people than other societies in history? Could it be that in the 20th century, Christian beliefs actually put some moral restraint on the whole society?"

Are you talking about individual people or entire societies? Because generally individuals are mostly good people, regardless of what they believe, but when governments mobilize their society to do something evil, they do it, whether they agree with it morally or not.

You know Science explains almost nearly every thing in our life. But I know one thing that science doesn't explain:

Our LIFE and SOUL!!!

Oh yes it does!

We know from observation that conservatives like Anthony Grande have neither a heart or a soul.

Really??? Than I must not be paying enough attention in Biology.

Would you tell me what gives me life???

Yeah, I know how I have arms, legs, skin, bones, muscles, blood, DNA, ect., but how did I get life???

And what about my soul??? Why do I love Baseball, pasta, dark haired girls??? Why do I love everyone??? Why do I put the needs of everyone before my own???? What makes me come to Blogcritics???

Please tell me how I don't have a heart or soul, Winston.

Anthony, you get life because you have a functioning brain and you are aware of your existence and you have free will. No god is needed for this. Evolution explains it.

You have no heart or soul because you have no compassion for women or teenagers who become pregnant and do not wish to go through the trials of pregnancy.

You wish to make the decision for the terminally ill to remain alive against their will, which is tyranny against the helpless who can feel pain.

How does Science explain Alienboy's soul??? Why is he a liberal??? What makes him come to blogcritics???

How does Science explain Winston's soul??? Why is he a liberal??? Why is he negative towards me??? Why is he here on BC???

What gives you guys life??? What gives me life???

Sure Winston, the Brain makes us function, But what put us here??? How does science explain how life got into our brain???

And what happens to our life and soul when we pass away???

Well, Anthony, a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina, and, well...they have sex and that's how babies are made.

Life gets into our brains when we develop inside our mothers, and while we grow and develop after we are born.

When we pass away, I think it would be safe to assume that our consciousness ceases to exist.

As to why I am a liberal, well, I think for myself and I support civil rights.

But how does life get in us when we are devoloping in our mother???

And so you do concede that the unborn are alive???

"As to why I am a liberal, well, I think for myself and I support civil rights."

So do I, but that is besides the point.

"I think it would be safe to assume that our consciousness ceases to exist."

"Think" is not enough. I want to see "science".

The unborn are alive, but they cannot survive without the mother until late in the pregnancy. There is no 'person' until a conscious mind is present. Cancer cells are not humans.

Anthony, there're many sciences that study those things, biology, psychology, neurology, sociology, etc, I can't tell you how science explains those things, because I don't study any of those things, having said that, the scientists aren't under the impression that they know everything. Here's a question though, what makes us happy, or what makes us sad, the answer is brain chemicals, and I know this because I've tried a couple of recreational drugs before, such as ecstacy, which unnaturally increases the production of chemicals which make you happy, so I'm standing there stupidly deleriously happy for no other reason than some chemicals in my brain, normally certain things trigger their release in small doses, because humans desire that fealing, they try to do the things which trigger that release, my point is, nothing spiritual touched my soul to make me feel happy, even though I felt that it had, you can get quite philosophical on that shit, everyone and everything becomes beautiful, coming down sucks though.

"You have no heart or soul because you have no compassion for women or teenagers who become pregnant and do not wish to go through the trials of pregnancy."

All this is besides the point, but I want to point something out to you: After you wrote that you wrote this:

"Life gets into our brains when we develop inside our mothers,"

So you agree in killing a life???

I have total compassion for mothers. They chose to get pregnant and I say sure, but don't destroy a life.

Where is your compassion for the unborn???

And how does LIFE get in our brain???

And how does LIFE get in our brain???

I don't understand the question, brain cells devide and multiply in the fetus, the cells are alive the moment they exist, life doesn't have to penetrate into the brain, your question doesn't make any sense to me.

How the fuck did this become an abortion discussion, I've officially flip flopped, I've decided to be in favour of abortion, I'll be against it again next week.

"How the fuck did this become an abortion discussion"

Abortion Grande always drives the discussion to it. It's because he's so recently out of the womb.

the thing that gets me is how he argues against something that was never said, for example, "OH SO YOU CONCEDE THAT THEY'RE LIVING, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE HUMAN, WHICH MEANS YOU THINK KILLING HUMANS IS OKAY, WELL IF THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOU THINK, THEN YOU SIR ARE AN EVIL MUTHA FUCKER" and the guy is like, yeah, I was discussing why I don't believe in god.

"Life gets into our brains when we develop inside our mothers,"

So you agree in killing a life???

I have total compassion for mothers. They chose to get pregnant and I say sure, but don't destroy a life.

Where is your compassion for the unborn???

And how does LIFE get in our brain???


Anthony Grande should shut the fuck up, he's making me hate the unborn because he won't stop talking about them, kill the unborn, because anyone who gives a shit about them is [edited] like Anthony.

Roger and Luke I would like you guys to take a look at comment 20 where WINSTON, not me, changed the subject to abortion.

And then read comments 21-30 where I kept trying to get back on subject but WINSTON, not me, wouldn't allow that to happen.

It is like this where ever I go. I show up at a thread and someone mentions something stupid and narrow-minded about abortion and I am forced to retort. But in this case I tried not to retort but WINSTON, not me, ensisted upon it.

-------

About your comments Luke, I forgive you. We are all brothers here and Jesus taught us to forgive.

-------

Winston, you still have failed to tell me where we get life from, why we have life and how do we get life in with your scientific knowledge.

I feel better now, that some dude on the internet has forgiven me, [edited].

I don't like this [edited] bullcrap, i said [edited]

Anthony, I'm not against you, just your offensive, arrogant, bullying opinions.

okay anthony...God is the reason, the sole reason, for your life and everyone else's...he's the reason you're codependent enough to put others' needs ahead of your own...he's the reason you feel the need to be lambasted here at blogcritics...he's not only responsible for everything you do/say/think/feel, he's also the only one who can take credit for everything you've ever accomplished in life because those are really God's accomplishments, not yours...nothing is yours, not your thoughts, feelings, words, or deeds; it's all God's...you are but a puppet in the grand scheme of things, always subject to another's whims regardless of how you feel about it because those feelings don't belong to you and aren't yours...
for all intent and purposes, you are meaningless and your existence is nothing more than a small plaything in the universe...
nothing you do or say matters...your life can and will be taken as easily as it was given without regard for anything that differentiates you from anyone else...in fact, you're not different than anyone else in that we're all just pawns in God's great game...
what ground God doesn't have covered is covered by the devil and yet still God has this covered having created the devil in the first place...here again is the opportunity for you to see that what evils you do and say is the doing and saying of someone else, something else...it is not yours...
nothing is yours, not the good or the bad of you because in the end there is no you, just God and the devil operating the controls of you...
as this applies to you, it applies to everyone...no one is in control of, responsible for, or can take the credit for anything they do/say/feel/think...God controls all good and the devil controls all bad and we people control nothing and yet still God controls it all...
the rest, our nothingness, matters not...

diana:
That's the best arguement against religion and faith and for self determination I've heard in a while.
Wasted on Anthony, no doubt(like everything else), but still...

tom:

The wars of the Reformation helped spread the plague. Religion didn't create the disease, but it is interesting that in a time when most were devout the reaction to this disease was to kill your neighbor in order to prove that you are more holy than him.
And the wars of the Reformation themselves killed many, in some parts of central Europe, probably more than the plague.
If loving God makes you a nicer person, Tom, that's great.
But religion has proven to be as deadly as any other idealogy.

Follow up on some comments

Thanks for the comments, I understand what you saying. Here is my point and why I wrote the piece. I have written on variety of sujects, including Religion and society. (Included in my last book as well.)

I have heard numerous times that if we only get rid of religion, society will be better. Or how believing in God makes you less intellectual. My point is that when you get rid of religion, society ends up more coarse and more bloodier.

The 20th century has backed up my contention in this regard. Elimination of religion has not led to utopia, far from it. One writer early in the 20th century noted that you elminate God, people will find something else to believe in. One reason for the popularity of Nazism or communism was that it gave people something to believe in. The ism became a belief system in themselves.

As the 20th century ended, here is the scorecard. The Catholic Church, often a reactionary force in history in the eyes of many, became a force for democratic reform in Latin America, the Phillipines, Central Europe- in particular Poland.

It was the Church in Poland that proved to be the perfect counter to the Communist regime. The argument made here is that it is individuals that are terrible not the fact they may or may not be religious. What is missing is a close examination of the ideas that replaced religion and how ideas influence societies. Eliminate Religion from the public square and what will replaced it? That is the crux of the argument and the bottom line as the 20th century proved, many of those ideas have proven to be more fatal when they were divorced from religion. Historian Paul Johnson in his book Modern Times discusses in his last chapter. Interesting reading. Thank you for your comments and interest.

tom:

I'm glad we're in agreement that the wars of the reformation were as bad in Europe in their day, as were the wars of Napolean (democracy), in WWI (empirial hubris), WWII (first war on an ism)were in their day.
I would venture to say that the wars of colonial conquest, driven at least in part by a desire to spread religion, were as bad in there day as the global spread of communism was in it's day.
It's good that the isms that did the most damage have been greatly reduced (depending on how you categorize China)
today.
I'm not sure we should welcome the belief (religion) that did so much killing before the isms back with open arms because it has had a mixed record recently.
Again, if being a Christian makes you a nicer person, more power to you.
I'm just not sure it should be the basis for politics.

I mean, the gulags you mention in the title were in existance before communism. Lenin himself spent some time in Siberian exile.
It seems the gulag functioned under Tsarist Christian oligarchy AND under communism.
See what I mean, religion can be a good personal moral foundation (it also creates some Anthony Grande's), but it's morals get a little maleable once it's in power.

Actually, your comparison between the Tsar and Communism will actually make my point. First, while the Tsar had "gulags",there were no way near as vicious as the later communism one.

Second, In the 20th century, many authorian government actually shown a williness to open up and reform. Before WWI, the Duma was set up as part of needed reform. Other dictatorships also reform themselves. Former Secretary Jeanne Kirpatrick discussed in her famous article in Commentary. (I will add that she wrote that maybe the Chinese Communism may actually be the first communist government to switch over. It it does, I will gurantee that there will be a religious basis as part of the moral center.)

My point still stands, when viewing the 20th century- those societies with some form of moral center- mostly religious were less likely to be engaged in mass murder than those who didn't.

Alienboy, please explain how my opinions are arrogant, bullying or offensive.

Now for all you people who are trying to make me look like a Religious Fundalmentalist:

I am not Religious

I have not been to a Church since I was 5.

I am not baptized (most of you are).

I do not base my views on Gay Marriage, Aborttion, Death Penalty, ect. on my Religious beliefs. They are based on Common Sense.

I came to this thread asking you guys to explain how science explains LIFE, but you guys have failed to do it yet, instead you call me names, you test my credibility and you hypocrites accuse ME of changing the subject.

How do we have life??? How do we have soul???

ss, who the Hell are you??? You come here talking shit about me and such.

No Diana, that is not what I personally believe. I believe God put us here and gave us life to do as we will. Abraham, Moses, Isiah, and Jesus (if you believe) I believe were sent here to show us the right path. You guys may not believe this and I am fine with that.

No matter what you people say I am not imposing none of my personal beliefs on any of you. You are free to do as you will and I am free to do as I will. I just came to this thread to ask a question that I am confused about: How does science explain our lives and souls???

Anthony, your opinions are as described because you shrilly insist only you are correct.

How come in #35 you write "bout your comments Luke, I forgive you. We are all brothers here and Jesus taught us to forgive" but above in #46 you state "
I am not Religious".

You then go on to prove your simplistic arrogance, claiming your views are based on common sense rather than your beliefs and then continue with this charade of reasonability about the origin of life.

You might want to explain a little more carefully what you mean by life and soul. Personally, I usually use them in the sense of life and soul of the party. But that's another story.

Just because I believe the words of Jesus doesn't mean I am Religious. If everything were literally true in the Bible I would probabally be going to Hell.

Now I believe in Jesus, but when have I said that YOU must believe in Jesus???

Now I never insisted anything about the Origins of Life. I have this question on my Biology homework and it asks, "Scientifically explain how we posses Life and a Soul," and I can't find the answer in my Biology book so I just thought that you liberals might know it because you are always going on about Science.

Can you, ALIENBOY, answer my question???

Scientifically, how do we posses life and soul???

How do we have life??? How do we have soul???

anthony, science doesn't know...that doesn't mean any other explanation will do...it's perfectly okay not to know something...we only know what we know, and one of those things we know is that we don't know everything...there's no shame in this, no fallacy or fault...
we strive for knowledge constantly and often we are rewarded (the earth is round, the universe is huge, there is something smaller than an atom, polio has a vaccine)...
every person in existence has struggled with the questions you ask, additionally with the meaning of life and our purpose...
it's mind boggling to think it's all so random but it's equally mind boggling to think it's all someone's ulterior motive...
and through the ages it hasn't mattered one iota that we still don't know...it'll matter plenty when we find out, but it's okay for now that we don't know...
common sense dictates that when we spend time time on things we can't control and don't know we are wasting that time...clearly we could've spent that time on things we can control and things we can find out about in this life, in these moments ...
science asks a question and follows it up by testing what happens when you do this or do that...science doesn't just ask a question and then sit there waiting for the answers to fall out of the sky...
spiritual questions like "where did my soul come from?" and "how do we have life?" (outside the biological answers already established) are found by each individual by searching deep within...
just sitting there asking the same question over and over and waiting for the answer to come from somewhere on its own hasn't worked for you so far...it's a good bet this approach will continue to fail you...

the universe, God if you will, is like a vending machine..."ask and ye shall receive" means having to put the money in the slot and making your selection...if you just stand there, the candy and chips will just stare at you through the glass forever...

Diana, it is obvious that no one knows, but it is weird that there aren't any theories or hypothesies.

You know Science doesn't really know anything for sure. I wasn't asking for the exact answer. I was asking for what scientists "believe" is how we have life and a soul.

Anthony, read my post 29:

I go into a little bit our own deceptiveness, the soul might be a construct of the mind, an ancient meme that insists on convincing us that we're more than just flesh and bone, that there's a supernatural component.

Energy does not cease to exist, it only changes form. We are energy, pure and simple. without electrical impulses in our body we die, period. The entire universe is run this way. The entire universe is simply a giant recycle bin that reuses eveything over and over. Earth is a giant recycle bin. The water we drink was drank by the dinosaurs. Nothing is removed or added from the universe. When you die, the energy that is you, is reused to fund something else. Whether you want to call that energy a soul is a personal decision based mostly on things you were told growing up. The fact is that matter is energy and energy is matter. [Einstein] You have life because there is something of a chemical reaction when the sperm enters the egg that induces energy to assert itself. If that egg is aborted then the energy simply changes form and gets reused in a universal sense. There is nothing lost or gained in the universe by the loss of life, be it a 90 y/o or a 2 day old, human or animal or plant. The energy is simply reused by the universe. You really must look beyond this place we live, called earth, to understand. The forces are UNIVERSAL, not merely of earth. If that picture is too big for you to see then all the dicussion is for naught.

Regarding post 39: You have obviously been to church because that is exactly how it is and how it should be. God gets the credit for everything, however he cannot be blamed for anything a man chooses to do with a free will.

Anthony you are wasting your breath with these people.God himself said "few are chosen".Luckily all I need is the faith of a mustard seed.

If I am wrong we end up in the same place if they are wrong there will be hell to pay.

Sordaded, that may be true, but it's useless to think that way, here's an extension of your logic.

mp3s are just 0's and 1's, so I'm not stealing anything, all I have is ionized particles on a metalic disc

kiddy porn is also just 0's and 1's, same thing applies.

people are just made of atoms which are the same as inanimate objects, so I can rape and kill and steal all I want, because nothing has any inherant morality, it's just an asortment of atoms doing stuff.

So you know what, some guy can come along and cause your brain cells which are atoms which are energy to die due to a bullet which is atoms which is energy, and then he can put his penis which is atoms which is energy inside your wifes butt which is atoms which is energy, and none of that matters, it's all just some atoms which is energy and some quantumn physics, and a bunch of stuff happens.

and you're not allowed to feel bad about it, otherwise you just aren't seeing the big picture.

Just on a literary basis, this essay is real scattershot. You need to pick one point, and follow it through somewhere. You could get a dozen different essays or more started out of this. Pick one.

You started to say something interesting about Hitler as a religious icon, then you got sidetracked with Christian proselytization.

Tom:

Alright, in the case of Siberian exile v. the Soviet gulag, I guess the Tsar wins. But in other apples to apples comparisons, it's still a tie.
I'll list them:

1492-1919
European colonilism, which always acknowledged the spread Christianity as one of it's components, killed at least 10-20 million native peoples globally at a time when the world had less than 2 billion people in it, encouraged bigotry and systematized and spread the practice of slavery, persecuted Jews, and wiped out whole civilizations, before finally driving Europe to near self destruction in WWI. It's only tangable benefit being it set the stage for later progress.

1776-Present
The spread of religiously tolerant but fundamentaly secular democracy, enlightenment, and science; though incredibly beneficial (to the point where it's killings aren't tallied) has a long history of spreading by warfare, an unfortunate but (in the past) deserved association with economic colonialism and support of dictatorships in the post colonial world to maintain unfair economic advantage during the communist/socialist period, and enforcing it's ecomonic dictums through harsh poverty. It seems to be slowly, unevenly, and with some glee in it's relapses, out growing these negative impulses. Real benefits to extensive to list, many coming directly from scientific advancements.
Scientific communities, especially in periods of most rapid advancement, often hostile with religous dogma and organized religion.

1917-Present
Marxism/Communism killed at least 150 million, almost half that in China alone, engaged in a nuclear backed Cold War with democracy that threatened civilization and progress itself, allowed meglomaniacal dictators to create nightmare totalatarian states, extremely hostile to religion or any dogma but it's own, failed to reap any measurable benefit beyond lowered infant mortality rates in places like China and Cuba.

1936(?)-1945 (exluding Franco)
Killed at least 20 million in it's short existance, nearly wiped the Jewish people out in Europe, had a complicated relationship with organized religion (in Spain openly backed by Catholic Church) practiced amoral science, pushed others into the creation of nuclear weapons, despite it's sometimes lauded stability and productivity in Germany, it brought ruin to Germany because it could not out produce either democracy or communism and lost the wars it started. No real benefit except perhaps it was so horrible it finally gave bigotry a bad name.

The worst isms are hostile to religion, but religion has also often been the worst part of the spread of modern society (see colonial period)

Ok Luke. What I stated is true, but why does that dismiss us from doing what is in the best interest of the world/universe? Does it dismiss us from doing what we know inherently is right? We don't need a book, be it the bible, koran, or mary poppins, to tell us what is right. When a man murders someone, he knows it is wrong. EVEN if he professes not to know, inside he knows. If he truly doesn't know then he is mentally ill and needs help. If he did it in anger then he has to pay the consequences.
That we use energy to run our bodies is simply an answer to Grande's question in post 49, How do we posess life.
The thinking on earth is still so primitive that we profess to need a guide to tell us right from wrong. The christians say jesus, Arabs say mohammed...etc,etc. Then they proceed to kill each other to prove who is right about their guide saying killing is wrong.
The life force that is us is all we need to tell us right from wrong. It is not useless to think in those terms. It makes you responsible for listening to your inner self and doing right. Unfortunately most people blame god when something good or bad happens. That sort of thinking is so grandiose that it boggles the mind. That god could be held responsible for any of the things that men do or that the weather does or that animals do...is where weak people go to find comfort.
The universal forces that are in motion and that fund everything from a collapsing star to a hurricane to a persons soul, do not place a higher value on any of these. Man, with his " I am the grandest of all things" places himself above all these other things. And that will be the downfall of our species. If we do not learn to live with the energies that form and shape everything, then these same energies will take our energy and recycle it.
And if all those things happened that you said, my energy would not be significantly affected. It would be reused by the universe. What you are trying to say is that "Boohoo poor me, I got killed and a man had his way with my wife boohoo." Like that is in someway going to affect the universe. No it would only affect our little tiny tiny portion of it and then only in the most physical sense.
We are part of the universe and our energy never ceases to exist, so if your scenario happens, I do not cease to exist, I simply change form. Only in our self centered thinking does boohoo come into play, and we really need to change that.
It does not dismiss us from doing right.

SS, post 58 neglected one item. Almost everything listed can be attributed to one underlying cause. Greed. Of individual men and of religions. Religions cannot be wrong about anything and are willing to put to death men who disagree with their dogma. The reason they cannot be wrong is because then there might be disbelief by the masses, and the masses money is needed to fund the church.
The dogma of democracy is greed and they are willing to put aside the best interests of mankind, the planet, the universe, to gain a greater share of whatever they desire.
Greed is the root of china. Those in power live in opulent luxury compared to those 2 billion workers that do the heavy lifting. And that is how they want it to stay and they, too are willing to kill anyone who challenges their beliefs.
It is not just men or religions but their self centered view that they somehow deserve more than others, that causes the disfunction in society.
Also, it is almost impossible to argue with the point that religions morals become maleable when it achieves power. Power somehow begats greed which in turn allows most anything to be justified in the powers point of view.

In TRUE communism there should be from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. However due to power, which induces greed, those at the top soon think that they deserve more than those that put them at the top and soon you have stalin, not communism. China is not true communism, nor is cuba. Those at the top get a far greater share than those at the bottom. Power, sadly, is intoxicating.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Animal Farm, George Orwell

Justin Berry, do you mean 47??? You said comment 39.

In comment 39 Diana goes against what you and I believe.

"Belief in God is Protection against the Gulag", writes Tom Donelsen.
Oh God - has he never heard of the witch hunts, the Spanish inquisition, the genocide on the mesoamerican natives. All crimes committed by "good christians".

Niels Jurgensen
journalist

Niel,

Actually, I have heard of those things but my point is that over the past 100 years, the absence of God from the public square has not improve the lot of us humans. If anything, it has made it worse. A point that you fail to counter. Just think, gulag, just think Nazis Germany, just think the horror under Mao, just think of almost every major slaughter house over the past 100 years.