Monday, 21 January 2013

Chemical Castration or Who Do We Blame For Delhi Rape?

Human fear and courage are selfish by the definition and they are always balanced to protect personal integrity. Motivation to protect own safety usually makes us follow fear and we tend to not speak publicly or engage. Excuse is that ‘we can not do anything about it anyway so why expose ourselves unnecessarily’, isn’t it so? It takes sometimes a very strong message to motivate us to act courageously. But in the end, our courage to react is motivated by a fear from seeing again, closer to us, what we have seen happen to one of us.

…Do we have a right to wonder why the gang of man thought that it is acceptable to grab and violate random woman? If they have been exposed to a social teaching and dominant opinion that woman is a property of man, therefore can be treated in what ever way he chooses to treat his property? Add to it hormones doing their job like in all young people, ‘boy’s talk’ and sharing their sexual desires and frustrations that can leave the group highly eroticized, and sex is not accessible…

Without any intention to excuse rapists for one second, but aren’t we all product of social psychopathology that we are exposed to?

On one we agree: we DO chose our behaviour up to certain extent.
But think about this if you are, for instance, white male, who is proud of the rights your grandfathers already granted to women, and who thinks that he deserves credits and awards for not beating your wife or cutting off her nose and ears if she tries to escape from your tyranny:
If you by chance happened to be born and raised somewhere else, and thought from childhood that it’s your duty to discipline woman when she is disobedient, ask yourself how easy would be for you to behave differently? Furthermore, how many of you guys who think that you are treating your wives equally is really not abusing any social advantages available for you? Objectively, advantages are available for you to take them if you want them, social advantages and opportunities to take more and better of life for yourself, and you can, without problems, get away with it. In every culture, in every continent, you still have to choose not to abuse. Yet, you do have that choice. As you will not be disrespected socially if your wife goes out in a mini skirt or if she leaves you and divorces you. You will still have a respect from other guys in your gang and no one will despise you if you’re cooking or washing dishes. Even opposite – people will see you as a correct person. But remember, just some 30 years ago you would have been teased and called a wimp for doing “woman’s jobs” or not displaying your macho authority over your woman.
In the end, if you are completely honest, how many of you who are openly pro equality still say sometimes, packed into a theatrical tone like you are joking, but not very clear of what position are you sincerely holding, how many of you sometimes say, with a theatrical nostalgia, something about ‘good old times of undisputed male domination’? Not that it’s really behind us yet, is it?

But here, in India, we LIVE in the ‘good old times’.
In some schools that are considered desirable, I heard, they admit only children whose mother is a home-maker, as they want to assure that homework will be supervised. “Your mother has to work? It’s not good for you and you are not good for our school, my boy.” That’s the social value that they promote in their classrooms as well, I guess.
Girls who are attending that school are being as well educated to become home-makers when they grow up.

If we put too much poisons into our body it can develop cancer, a malignant tissue. Available treatments are chemotherapy and operation. When we put too much poison in our mind, what do we do with malignant ideas?

In all events and gatherings following this monstrous attack, in all public and social media, we see people in rage, demanding death penalty, chemical castration and suggesting many other kinds of physical punishments for men who participated in this act. Violence we learnt about gives birth to the violence in us. And we feel like they should experience same kind of pain and fear they made another human being experience. But if we decide on that, whose job is then to perform that violence on the convicted ones? Would I be the one? And who is then supposed to punish ME for inflicting harm to another human? Or shall we collect and employ a bunch of psychopaths to execute the dirty work that we (as no one in particular but as a ‘society’, everybody, which means not me) decide to perform on a member that most of us agreed deserves it?

Before crucifying these men we have to give ourselves an answer are we crucifying them for the rape or for an example? Example that is supposed to make us see own hands as little less dirty in this case?

Those men should, of course, be removed from the society and locked down in prison for the rest of their life. They took away life and future of a human being. They should not get a chance to ever live free and fulfilled life. Furthermore, it’s an act of ferocious misogyny which reveals that those people have unacceptable social views and society has to make a clear statement about it. Social influences can not excuse what someone has done with own hands.
But to prescribe harsher punishment to set an example, and therefore intentionally ignore responsibilities of the society in large and it’s ruling government in this case, would be again setting the same example of public uncritical cruelty to what someone finds socially unacceptable?
Next thing will be to promote cutting off tongue for using inappropriate language with the woman. No one should use inappropriate language with anyone, but are we going to start cutting off tongues? Shall we cut off hands for stealing and noses for mixing in others’ personal affairs?

Rule no 1 in diplomacy: What ever happens – use it to strengthen your position of power.
Rule no 2: If nothing is happening that you can use to strengthen your position – make it happen.

In some weird way, a punishment that would be harsh beyond what we humans should feel that we have a right to impose on each others, in some weird way that kind of punishment would give even more legality to what is happening on daily basis to millions of women. Punishing culprits in this case as they are some strange alien monsters that come straight from the universe with their ultra right ideas (hence the society has taken it’s action by prescribing harsh punishment for this and future cases of this kind), will not eliminate the fear as it will not eliminate gang rapes.
By presenting and promoting it as a necessity to protect them from those and such kind of gangs and individuals, society will claim the right to expect from a woman even grater submission to social oppression. That in result will provide even more privacy to what is happening behind closed door. And that seams to be a goal of some people who hold significant power in India, at least according to their social views presented in their public statements.

Culture of Rape
And guess who is to blame?

Their sisters and daughters are not in danger. That is because they are behaving properly: They don't move by buss in a late hours dressed for summer weather. They have a car and the driver.
The worst thing is that these are not the worst.

Yes, we all agree that rape is unacceptable. At least publicly. (Except in some extreme views, if you read quoted article) But it is happening every day, under which ever name those who are creating social approval for it can invent in order to give themselves right. Violence and abuse are being approved socially in so many cultures, under so many self-proclaimed authorities, and rules on indefinite basis re-affirmative for those in power. Women can only beg for mercy and hope that it it will be granted. She basically has to prove that she wasn't provoking the rape, which is close to impossible considering that showing one's ankle is considered a provocation. 
Around here every man has a possibility to rape and molest SOME woman (maybe not every woman, but if he wants, he can find more then one available and unprotected) without social consequences, which is basically a definition for the right.
Right – social consensus on what you can do with yourself and to other people, without negative social or legal attitude towards it and without legal consequences (with rights, we were thought, come certain obligations. And obligations that follow this right are unheard of, to which we will arrive later)

We are all screaming loudly around the case where a group of young man took that right (right of a man to impose himself sexually to a woman) in a little bit wider meaning then socially accepted. We needed to see the extreme of what we are all closing our eyes to, before starting to freak out as it finally applies to us as well (without trying to promote the concept of necessary sacrifices and their social consequences which is disgusting as those who are abusing it).

Do we have a right to wonder why the gang of man thought that it is acceptable to grab and violate random woman? If they have been exposed to a social teaching and dominant opinion that woman is a property of man, therefore can be treated in what ever way he chooses to treat his property? Add to it hormones doing their job like in all young people, ‘boy’s talk’ and sharing desires and frustrations that can leave the group highly eroticized, and sex is not accessible…

So when you see nobody’s property (especially if ‘you’ means plural, which adds a feeling of no individual responsibility for the act, which again makes it easier to a human mind to see it as acceptable), available in the open wildness after the time that decency prescribes for a woman, without presence or sufficient protection of her ‘owner’ (it’s enough to be unmarried to qualify for the victim), it is your right to claim her as your own property. (Like a bench in the park) Yet, as chances are bad that she will anyhow became your permanent property (you can sit on it but can’t take the bench home, someone will come and claim it), you have a right to use it and then devastate it, as after you have used it, it (the woman) anyway becomes useless for anyone else as a property. And from your point of view which makes it OK to do that to a human, is the fact that that human is a woman, therefore her life doesn’t count. Not to mention that hurting her can not turn back to you. She has no means to defend herself, so why wouldn’t you take your frustrations on her life? She was anyway testing her destiny by staying outside without enough male escort after decent time.

It happens every day, to the enormous number of girls. And how does society deal with it?

To be continued…

Thursday, 3 January 2013

What If There Is No God? And What If There Was a Supernatural Power?

…God exists but I don’t believe in him
“We all agree that god exists” (and we are pretty sure that we read the right book)
Kind of attitude that we see all around, that is trying to present some past tense (ancient past tense) situation as actual nowadays, is not surprising or difficult to understand knowing how humans are reasoning. Many are still trying to present all people as believers, just of different religions and deny existence of those who do not believe in god. They are recognizing us, they are debating with us, but in their public positions they are holding attitude towards atheism as to of-side minority thinking. They even like to discuss that atheism is a faith as well, describing it as having a non-belief instead as lack of belief. Like if “not to believe” means a verb “to not believe”.
It is all fully understandable. Discussion with the atheist involves whole different questions and arguments then the one with believers of another religion. You can discuss endlessly whose prophet is the one who really spoke with the true god. You might even convince the other guy to convert if you are very good with interpretations and very suggestive. But with the atheist you can not argue on which kind of clothes they should ware to please your version of higher command. You can not discuss higher cause or purpose of human existence, because they (atheists) recognize none. You can not debate on how you can deserve to be saved and live happily after you die.
To “god doesn’t exist” you can not argument except with “yes it does!” And to “why should I think so?” you say “because I believe so.” And, don’t get me wrong, I agree that, if you believe that god exists, it actually does exist for you. Something that you are spending so much time visualizing, so much energy talking to in your mind, in return must be really affecting your life. The fact that you believe that it exists makes it truly existing power that also in reality runs your life, how you behave in it and with it.
If it’s helping you find a good direction and feel happy with yourself, your imaginary friend is welcome to stay in your hospitality as long as you are willing to host him (her, it, them – how ever you are picturing it). But in real reality that is just your mind picture, shaped by mind pictures of many who were imagining before you.

You have the right to believe in it (just as you have a right to believe in what ever you chose), but the statement that god exists is just and assumption. Assumption from which further, those who claim to have true evidence in hand, extract their right to draw borders of interest between each others and obtain infinite reach to both impose philosophy and prescribe rights to everyone on their territory. Just like drug cartels. (They do both in one or two places, so has been told)
No one should have the possibility to impose their version of human order. Not even to their children. You don’t have right to prevent other human being, be it your child, from deciding themselves what they want to believe in and by which order they want to live. We are all teaching our children some beliefs and values. But I don’t mind mine hearing about your views. I wouldn’t go so far as advising them to, for example, marry one your believers, but I would encourage them to talk with your children on social media. (If she ends up being happy to ware someone’s version of prescribed clothes, means that my story held less water then yours. And I will not be disappointed as long as she feels happy with her status.)

…No one will escape the final judgment!
What if, and I don’t have the illusion that I can persuade you if you by chance believe in god but, what if god doesn’t exist? You would have to question all that you ever did in the name of what you thought god has prescribed as righteous action. There are so many things that person can end up doing to please the one they think has a power. Same as belief in god allows you do delay questioning of your actions and live life without responsibility for what you have done to others. As god is what ever we decide to imagine, he is usually forgiving what ever we do, especially if we do it to someone to whom we do not subscribe same level of intimacy with god. Belief in god is a perfect excuse for avoiding logical and rational social interactions. At the same time we intend to secure abolition from social justice for what we are doing to others, as we are relying on a final judgment (amazingly everyone is expecting that god will forgive; counting that he’ll acknowledge our special circumstances probably).
Like in cases where Orthodox church is judging the child-molester. “If he is guilty, god will judge him anyway. And the worst punishment for him in this life, if he is guilty, is to live with the expectance of own death and facing that judgment, which, afterwards, will lead him straight to hell where he will burn for ever.” (If he is not sorry enough, in which case he’ll be forgiven) “So no need for humans to judge, he is the member of the church, god is there responsible for order anyway… And fear from what will happen when he (the god) intervenes (which happens conveniently after you die), is the worst punishment and source of suffering for the one who is waiting with unclear conscience.” But god is said to be responsible in all cases. And all should beware final judgment if they performed certain actions (in fact, they should have been afraid from it on time to prevent themselves from doing harm to other person, as fear from god is supposed to serve that purpose originally) But if everyone is to meet it (finale judgment), why don’t we all stop recognizing the crime? Why only priests who sexually abused children have a right to enjoy till the end of their life, because of assumed punishment that comes after? Why not leave it all to the god? Why waste for the whole gigantic legal system?

But what if there is no god? Because we don’t all agree about it a priori, you know. There are those who don’t really believe, but pretend to believe because they don’t care and they do not wish to waste time socially for discussing that. And there are those who can not pretend to believe to excuse closing their eyes before what you are doing with it (conception called god). What if we are right? Since you don’t have proofs to convince us otherwise, there are too many mystical events and logical nonsense that are insulting for the common sense, we have to disbelieve the whole concept. What if there is no god, hence final judgment will reach no criminal, just as reward will not reach the righteous? But even if their would be a finale judgment; on which bases society should estimate when to rely on it and let the criminal enjoy the time of this life? Or is one’s crime lesser if he is self-proclaimed god’s servant?
In the bottom of their vanity, everyone thinks that they are god’s favorites and that their personal chat with god (about how they love him and stuff) will insure that god will favor them after death despite a few inhumane horrors that they’ve done. Taking god as an ally is considered an excuse for absolute arrogance and total lack of compassion for those looked upon as god’s outsiders. But what if there is no god? How arrogant would you then feel? Knowing that you are going to die and disappear just as everyone else?
Despite how you like to present us to yourselves, atheists are very humble people. They have no illusion that anyone invisible in charge has chosen them among all people. They recognize both own fragility and other people’s humanity. If there is no god, you simply have to realize that you are only your mom’s favorite. And you have to come down from your “the chosen one” bubble and understand that no one has naturally more rights then others. No one is giving you more right except if you take it forcibly.

…Everyone will be judged according to their deeds
But what if there IS a god? It is fair ask and you should ask that question.
I know that this question is supposed to scare and shake the core of any radical positions in a matter, which by itself is to be taken as if your point has been made.
“Better believe, because if he exists then you’re screwed!” (not to be hypocritical, but just to be on a safe side…)
Nevertheless, you are talking about supernatural omnipotent and omniscient power. I lack belief in it. There is nothing on a “safe side”. At least nothing worth living for. What exactly should I fear to choose the safe side? What is that thing doing in practice? Suffering of innocents is not selective on religious grounds. It doesn’t recognize religious discrimination. Neither are guilty ones punished very often or selectively. How can we determine based on that who is being rewarded and who is being punished for their beliefs and out of beliefs conceived actions? Supposed deity, of which projection you are manipulating with, has done nothing so far to prove that it’s on your side, or that it appreciates more your way of life, so why would I fear it because you believe in it and fear from it? There are people who are afraid of ghosts, those who fear aliens, some believe in witches and vampires. Should I fear them as well (vampires and all)? I do fear some people who believe in them, of course. As I do fear some people who believe in god.
I don’t see anyone punished for their way of life. Not even those lunatics visiting peoples’ funerals calling their death “god’s punishment” and a little boy who died in fire a gay or something ‘sinful’ as that. But what you call way of life, in reality is to favor ones on account of others. That’s not way of life. That’s oppression; and you can not have it accepted as way of life because of the nomenclature you choose to use. Lucky for you that there is no god to judge you and put you to hell. 
…The supernatural brain chemistry
Nevertheless, if there would be a possibility that some such entity exists, thus in a sense of it’s supernatural origins perceived to be all knowing, and therefore perfect as well in it’s judgment, I sincerely doubt that such entity would possess vanity described in your scriptures. Rules of which braking is pissing that creature off, if you stand aside from your personal beneficiary politics, are far from what you’d expect from universal creature to be a creator of.. So if I think of myself in terms of being wrong about existence of some judgmental power in a position to decide who has done good and who has done bad, I think that questions asked in that trial will not be those that you listed from the information that you gathered from your sources. And I somehow can not picture that spoken owner of the indefinite power would be driven by some personal interests. I mean, that creature supposedly possesses everything. He would be so happy in his perfection that he wouldn’t be capable to even get slightly irritated, let alone getting really pissed off. Man, the god wouldn’t even possess nerves, as he would have never used them (presumably he has no body at all, how is he working out adrenalin?). Why would something perfect develop something useless?
That is a general question in this topic, by the way: Why would something perfect create something imperfect and then have to be pissed off with it for ever after? What was he missing to come to idea to create anything in a first place? And what was he doing before he created everything? Making plans? But even if he created it (for some reason) why would his mood depend on his creature’s obedience? What is his unfulfilled wish that can drive him towards greed (Pope and the guys collecting all that gold and joules…)? In fact, why doesn’t he finally go trough with that final judgment, or appear, or what ever? What is he waiting for? Is there not enough righteous people who died already to fill up the heaven? Or he is still sentimental about the model and doesn’t want to pull it out of production yet? Maybe he just has more souls to be put on the test on the stock that he made before; just that no one was having so much unprotected sex any more. I mean – why all this time? What is he doing of the higher priority? Show yourself! Protect your creatures! Why not? Why do they have to sin and repent, punish themselves and suffer? Is this some kind of kinky game out of the pure boredom?

...Who holds whom and for what? (Right to ask questions)
As a matter of fact, if god existed, I would be looking forward to meeting that creature in person. And I believe that both sides in that meeting would have right to ask questions, in dead. I would personally have a list of other questions for the supernatural all mighty guy. If I believed in him I’d definitely write it down and have it on me when ever might happen that I die. As it’s creation (and supposed to have been follower. While I was alive, because we are presuming here that I am now dead when I am meeting god, don’t we?), I would engage seriously in questioning him (god, what ever it appears to be) what is the meaning of some of the signs that he is sending us as a proof for his existence and his all mightiness. Such as millions of dieing babies and that kind, what is the actual meaning of that sign? And I would, if you excuse me, like to hear it straight from his mighty mouth (when I encounter HIM), not from you about how your mouthy reverent persuaded you to let go of the matter. Because you are all the time, as a reference for your answers, using someone who you never met and some people that you met, and who are referring to same source they never met either.
I don’t buy that creation has no right to question its creator. How would that apply? I can beat and rape my children; they have no right to question the treatment? If I create intelligent sheep, who can talk and think, I will have to listen to it, won’t I? I can not just slaughter it. I’ll have to take its view on her accommodation and nutrition as well if I suddenly end up connecting self consciousness to a creature. So, I guess, if I am wrong (honestly, if there would be a slightest indication that there is continuation of life after death of a physical body under the rules of functioning of this universe I would be the first to cheer to it and celebrate the possibility of not dieing for ever), therefore if I am wrong and someone can give me a reason to realize it, and I end up faced with the one who made it all happen, it will be an honest debate. I don’t know what non-circumstantial the all mighty will find on my account, but I see myself putting a lot of stress on his behavior with his attributed powers.
Oh, come judge us already!

…What the hell do you think of him?
Even if I wanted, I could not have any fear from what your stories have to say about what happens after material death of a body. For me, if anything comes after, it’s a simple unexpected benefit, and will not be, in any aspect, anything even slightly like what you decided to let your mind imagine. Contributing moral codex, impregnated with the concept of your (natural) domination, to the definition of how the distinction is made between what deserves pleasure or suffering, in a state when supposed nonmaterial force is holding our consciousness together, and after it loses it’s biological habitat, can not be really something that would count on the other side (after death) if that side happened to exist despite all proofs and all the logic. And I don’t think that such a perfect, and therefore perfectly good willing creature, would award you for inviting for a gang rape, labeling individuals who qualify for being submitted to such treatments as, for example, “all female over the age of 14 that are widowed or divorced”. For god’s sake. (!)
I know that you have been promised, in a book that you read, to get number of virgins and stuff in your imaginary scenario, if you fight for some cause. But those are not some characters from some mythical story. Those are real people with real bodies and real brains. They are suffering for real and they are able to recognize and understand what is being done to them. Do you really have the call from your ‘all mighty’ to proclaim that? Or is it some other, more earthly cause which, as well as the deed, only proves that you have no illusion, or real recognition, of any “all mighty power” above yourself? In fairness, if you think about it, only faith in god can be an excuse for such unbelievable cruelty. If there is no god, there is simply no excuse for violence. That’s logic. And if it (the logic) is given by supernatural, than it’s supposed to be given to you as well. As you claim to be in touch with the direct source, no one gave me such an idea. (But wait, wait, wait! Maybe god is sharing also logic unequally? All to those who do not believe in him.(?)) In fact, you are claiming and taking more power than it’s natural and inventing some divine prescription for that. It has been prescribed by your book and, conveniently, presents you as beneficiary. Your position in argument is that you do not have to prove yourself as it was already proven by mysterious events someone has described as happened in the past. You tend to ad your own mystical experience as most solid proof, hence no reason for questioning. I heard young girl saying. “I was asking Jesus to reveal himself to me. I was telling him: - If you are real, reveal yourself to me! - And he did!” She is Jehovah-witnessing now around India and Nepal, collecting for the Christian herd among the poorest and most neglected. Just to connect, every member of the church (at least in this part of the state) is giving 10% of their monthly earnings to the church. Such is a custom. When you get a job, you give whole first salary. That is also a custom. And you are happy to give. Your priest will pray for you with more enthusiasm.
Even if you take “there is no proof that god doesn’t exist” as a proof for its existence (which couple of science lessons should make you ashamed to have ever concluded), you have missed the essence of how, what you call “god”, would reason and resonate if it would exist. Otherwise, you have a right to believe in supernatural if you find it applicable to you and affirmative for your personal achievements. If you keep claiming that something (god) which is otherwise good is making you do things which are otherwise bad, then it becomes a matter of a society to strip you of the power to implement what you are intending to. Or if you do not do things which are otherwise good as trough a perception of god they look to be bad – like not stand in a protection of a girl who is being molested by a group of man, because “she is not supposed to be out in a street, so late, if she is a decent girl”, then schools should do something about it.

…A “perfection” in dead. And what is the use of it?
In a sum of all logic, the creature, entity… (or in which ever shape one could present something non existing to themselves) called god, as described by those who express themselves as believers, involves essential controversy between prescribed values, supposedly given by it, and own attributed fairness; and as such is unsustainable even as a believable SF conception spiced with lot of filling gaps with self-affirmative imagination. In fairness, we all deserve same rights. So in fairness, the mighty powerful, if existed, would share that stand. How do you mean “god gave man power over woman”? Circumstances and opportunities gave man power over women. If such entity or power (eternal and universal) existed as the source of goodness (hence should be good to all, shouldn’t it?), you went a long way in deciding how much of that goodness should fall onto your territory. God is a man. He favorites man.
There are cultures that recognize goddesses too. Those cultures favorite man as well. They worship goddesses and despise real women.
You have a right to believe that it is how it’s supposed to be, and not hear what others have to say about it, because your priest told you so? There is no way any “all-knowing in it’s fairness” creature would come to the idea to prescribe hierarchy of any kind. Why do you think that the mighty being would want some of his creatures to enjoy and others to suffer? Or some are supposed to enjoy being beaten? And… why by the way? And I don’t mean only gender oppression. We have so much inequality in the world that no righteous and omnipotent power would be able to watch it without proper intervention.
Except if, beside being supernatural, all-present, all-knowing and all-mighty, he is also a sadistic pervert who turns on to pain torture and pain.
If god exists, what is a use of him? To judge how much did we love him while killing each others? If I had his powers I would fix a thing or two on this planet.
You found god’s love and you are all blissful. You are full of yourself for doing charity. But you are overweight. Babies are dieing of hunger because their mothers do not get enough food and you eat too much. How can you be so happy? How can you be peaceful? Or is it your good deeds that require all the suffering, so that you can show off before god? I am not happy. I can’t be happy with so many others suffering. Doing charity doesn’t lift me up. I wish I was born in a different reality, in which there is someone good, smart, honest, decent and responsible in power. In this way, each one of us must be that one.

…What can I do about the sad fact that I was born?
I want to be happy. And, ideally, I would like all the people to be happy. There are few reasons for that and at least one of them is selfish.
I want to live in peace and enjoy my life. When people are unhappy, they tend to become aggressive and aggression spreads like decease. And then someone is getting hurt.
It, as well, makes me feel good when I think other people are happy, as it makes the world look better.
I see others as they have only one life too. Only this much time to live and enjoy. To cause pain?
But even if it wouldn’t be so, why in the haven’s sake would some self-content creature (such as god would have had to be if he existed), would create something to make it suffer? Now, later, for that, for this? Why not fix? It would be his creation’s functioning after all that he wouldn’t be satisfied with.
You totally misconceived even that imaginary perception. And you can stick to it as long as it helps you with figuring out the purpose of life. But you can not still keep a right to enslave people because of it.  
Maybe someone is happy to be disciplined when they do something wrong and can call it their own choice; but if it’s a consent to submission because there is no other socially available choice that guaranties more, but rather less desirable circumstances, then it’s not really a consent, is it? It’s more a mimicry. A surviving technique; that values life to the point of just being alive... “I’ll be beaten and raped part of the time; otherwise I’ll be covered tip-to-toe and engage with children and cooking.” And who did I hear saying they want that? If you claim that you are in war for souls, let’s see how many did you make happy with your policies? Or you think that children should see some purpose in own dieing from HIV? Maybe they are paying for the sins they will never have a chance to commit?

…Dangerous psychopath though, but fair man. Big believer!
When you say that church did more good for the world (especially Christian believers, but also Christian apologists, incline to underline this frequently), what do you actually mean?
-did a lot of good in the world (of which system of power and hierarchy is also created by church)
- is to credit for the development of the modern, western, liberal culture (which is good unless you are watching it from the outside of the bubble, while you are dieing of hunger. Then you see that bubble suckling in all the resources that could have served you for years and throwing away the benefits at the gambling table),
-sponsored education (thought people how to: give money to church, obey the ruler and serve system better) and art (paintings of mythical creatures in elated or horrifying scenes)…
what else… yes: charity.
-helping poor (Giving back, used and half broken, what we took from them in generations; helping those, who otherwise don’t matter to the society to, maybe, survive. And if they survive to maybe have enough to eat every week?)
To them you are saying that they are supposed to love god? Why? To them he doesn’t seam to be showing much affection? He would be supposed to love us all equally, so what could make him not notice those? To them you are saying that church did more good then bad? Or you are not taking them into account. If you would, that would seams to be just one-sided good.

…What does she know? She is a woman
Another thing that church, in a sense of organized religion, did extremely good, is to teach male domination to both sexes. Furthermore, male domination and control of women’s sexuality is named to be intrinsically linked to the persistence of cast/class system. Every religion has given a right to a man over woman in principle. Man has a right to order, woman has a duty to submit. It was like that for ages for very natural reasons lying mainly in physical size and reproductive function. Woman is described by all religions as to have less of a brain, so to say. And that used to be true in a sense that women used to possess less of an understanding of the world, thus for less to offer. But if understanding depends on exposure, then it was also natural situation. Women were not ever before new ages receiving any education neither they were in a position to make their own decisions. I don’t know if women naturally have less desire for power, but they simply didn’t have a power since organized human society started. Now when we evolve from the primitive “Hero and his love and his concubine” mythology (as the economic reasons for such social structure have expired some centuries ago, and long before the structural change began), and stop telling the kids what they must do with their gender, we are receiving equal results in every field of studies and work. Still, all organized religions propose female submission and all the crap that goes with it, such as beating her if she is misbehaving to discipline her. “Misbehaving”(!) In practice, what it is, is giving to a man a right to misbehave. If she complains – she is misbehaving. And then – you know what happens. A yes: it was also advised to a man not to misuse this right (lol). Who has never been out of power thinks that arrogance is natural state of mind. Why the right if not to use it? (Power makes one selfish, doesn’t it?) And again, what was the use of women oppression? Keep her for yourself and do what ever you want, isn’t it. It’s nice to have such right, isn’t it? Why not take it if no one can stop you? Why not use it if no one will judge you? Why give it away when you have means to keep it? You have whole social structure built to secure that right. Your position is that you should be in power because it’s an actual fact.

…Discussion with the dick-heads
You can prove your positions only when you stop applying them to everyone forcibly. Let them be informed that they, as humans, have a right to be treated in a better manner, and supply them with social options to chose for different treatment for themselves and let them THEN chose to submit themselves to your oppression. How can you otherwise claim to represent half (or more) of the population? Otherwise you are just one social group denying rights to other social group. Group of man against group of women. And since you have more physical power you make the rules and ways to impose them. And beating seams to have proved itself as a fast and efficient way to do it. Strong alliance of male power and female isolation are protecting those rules from any opposition. Woman has no social power to do anything for themselves except to play by the rules and hope for the best. And man has full liberty to apply his right what ever she does.

…I’m gonna live for ever; why not be arrogant?
Who ever can find the reason in some philosophy to beat who ever if we start looking things in that way. That to me looks as a world full of five-member-comities deciding on who will be beaten next. Our comity will meet and decide that X should be beaten because he was, for instance, beating his wife. Very legitimate reason to want someone punished and, most of all redirected in his thinking, by the way. Next thing will be that the other comity, consisted of the supporters of wife beating, who therefore consider beating X was illegitimate hence punishable by their rules, will decide that members of your comity, or the person who was by your order physically beating the wife beater (X),  should be beaten to death and exposed on a public square. They again, and everyone who helped them beat you, will be raped and murdered by ones who have grounds to condemn them… No. I think that you have to stop giving yourself any right to enslave and torture other people. And you have to stop defending your positions using self-definitions that give you undeserved credits, with the excuse that someone once gave that power to own selves and then attributed it to your appearance.
You don’t have a right to prevent your children from doing what makes THEM happy and deny the right to the half of the population to creative realization of their human potentials based on your, for ever self-promoting, theories. Same as people who dare to govern have no right to discharge parts of the society in line of sharing social options. And it is always ones who have neither rights or means to oppose oppression that are being put on a waiting list when it comes to corrections in order. In some places there is not even a waiting list as the order is not considering any changes as necessary or needed, but sees itself as final and natural share of power in which those who have power are presenting it as a natural state of affairs and proving their righteousness by calling themselves smarter then others.   

…World is full with chosen ones; god is not very picky for servants;
Now to go back to supernatural entity, which existence you want to acquire a social consensus about, by assuming that we should all a priori agree that god exists and other opinions have no real echo in your perception of what religion should have a right to influence with in the life of the individual.
You believe that you are smarter then others because that supernatural entity chose to make you smarter then others, attaching to that presumed fact of own god-given superior wisdom, as something that naturally follows, the right to govern for the benefit of society. Yet you are projecting that supernatural entity as approving to what ever misuse of power, gained by being smarter then others, you might perform. What are you taking your god for? A monster or a fool?
If I would be imagining supernatural power that would be sharing justice after this life is done with, I would see it (the power, the god) as it is making every person, after they die, experience for ever, what ever they have made others experience while they were alive. All pleasure and harm that you caused for someone you’ll be experiencing over and over for the eternity. Let’s take a look on how that conception of god would make us behave. If you raped someone, you’ll be for ever experiencing yourself a pain that you caused to the one who you raped. That would be a picture of justice if this life appeared to be a test. Why would someone who needs no violence, as their power is beyond limits, favorite violence and prescribe rewords for it? Tell me, why do you thing that kind of self-sufficient, everlasting, non-destructible life form would want you guys  to keep him company for the rest of eternity and would have indefinite number of virgins, or who knows what you expect, to reword your behavior during testing period? Or you have read so little other fiction that you actually believe that everlasting, all-knowing, omnipotent thing would have such earthly faults like anger management problem or so. Imagine that perfect thing in its chambers, alone in its uniqueness (yet surrounded with the souls of all who ever died without the sin; other then Mother Theresa, Pope and few other high clerics, mostly babies and small children), raging and shouting about someone being a gay, then sending a lightening to kill that one. (Do babies in haven have a consciousness as adults, or they are still reasoning like babies? And are they growing up there in heaven? That would explain where all the virgins to be shared come from.)

…God definitely exists; as a mean of manipulation
I don’t really think that any of those judging and punishing stories would apply to “god” if something like that existed. So, I have no fear from what god will do with me, if I realize after I die, that I woke up in another life. I have a fear of what you guys, who are presenting god as your ally, can do to me in this life. And I say that, the very fact that you are still not punished for your crimes against humanity is a proof that no all mighty and perfectly fair life form exists. Or at least that supposed form has no interest of so ever in interfering around here with its powers. Justice of such life form would be justice, not your presentation of justice. Justice is obvious when there is no chosen ones. If there is no god, who did you say chose you again?
It is a pity and really a shame that such kind of justice-sharing, all-present creature does not exist. Paradox, but those suffering biggest loss from the absence of such law enforcing force, are the ones who don’t believe in its existence. We have to watch and fear from what someone can inject into your mind trough the channel called cognitive dissonance that belief in god is creating in your mind. Trough that channel every irrational fear can be transferred. And for those fears people go to war. If he existed he would take care of you guys.

Religion is basically a tool for producing sheep. And even if that would be excusable, if you observed it as if we had different mental potentials (again if you want purpose of hegemony), and in most cases you do succeed to make sheep with the carrot and the stick; but occasionally, because mental torture has sometimes such effect, instead of a sheep you create a monster and then the guy comes to school to shoot some children. Which then some priest describes as a christmas message from god that we should love each others more. If path of success is just a most selfish possible response to the given circumstances, then god is favoring clever psychopaths. 

…God save me from your people!
The whole story of church being responsible for doing good things
(like spreading culture* (*read their financing options) by investing some of the extra revenue from the wholly wars and slave work to teach masses to follow their command)…
Only bad things need a god’s name to be done in. Why would someone do good and hide their name? Good things are done by people. In their own names. Or you would have never heard the name of Mother Theresa and bunch of others; if they didn’t act in their own name. They might be calling “god’s name” frequently, but they are quite exposed along with their invisible boss.
People tend to not check properly one story before believing in it. Young people still wearing Che on their chests. You should at least surf some internet before identifying with someone’s statements and actions. Almost every human does something good now and then in their life. But can that excuse us for crimes that we do?
Some of the actions of some religious believers and members of some churches might have done good for what we call “humanity” (which is still excluding ones who are dieing this very moment from the medically preventable deceases), but “church”, an organized religion, as institution of power, has done so many evidently horrible things that measuring any good as a balance to that would be as giving credits to Hitler for playing Wagner in the camps.
I’ve heard people saying about a man who was an evidential maniac and proven (also war) criminal: …”All that, but he was a very fair person (treating badly only the ones who deserved it, I guess), he was always kind to neighbors (lucky for them) and he was a big believer (giving generous contributions to the church from his plunders).”
What the hell does that mean? A big believer? Killed more then one with own hands. In the name of building a compound on the hill. And singing career for his mistress who he, in following, married, made her children, drugged her, abused her, (not that she was a saint herself, but) used her as a cover for his smuggling affairs and in few occasions as a human shield… She was probably wondering why god chose her, amongst other girls from her village who also sang equally well, to fulfill such a grate destiny of serving as a punching bag for that grate god’s man… Finally some other maniac shot him in the eye. She still roams the society… Disgusting story. Like a bad movie.
Paranoia is a natural result of the belief in god.

God will give you peace!; Of what?
How many of such stories have you heard with people who express themselves to be non-believers as protagonists? I can’t recall any. Maybe I have a selective memory, but not even movies have managed to create a non-religious anti-hero (ideology counts the same as religion).
Non religious people are not members of any elitist organization united around holding each others asses. And they would be first to recognize god if god existed, and if god was doing what god would be supposed to be doing (creating wealth and prospect for all), they would love him in deed. But with the present situation in the world, if god exists (with all subscriptions, abilities and belonging rights), he must be either busy or absent. 7 thousand years vacation is all he needed. It was tedious creating the universe and all. .  
But if he (or what ever… god…) exists, then I intensively dislike that creature and disapprove its politics. His employment decisions are equally inadequate for someone with his reputation.
Even if there is a creator, that person is just watching, doing nothing. He made it all and now he is observing what his intelligent design is capable for. It’s an ongoing experiment it seams. He is working on improvements, mangling with our genes, trying to make us last for ever, but he is failing all the time. That’s probably why he is making so many of us that we have to fight for resources. (Or is it because he doesn’t allow contraception?)
If god doesn’t exist, we will all nicely die after we have finished (if we are privileged) our life cycles, making space for new specimens that we produced. Though attractive idea, changing dimension, shape of existence and all, is as unlikely to reflect reality as the idea that our soul entered our body, coming from somewhere, in conception.
We will all die, and how would it be if it would be possible to not die? Some would live for ever and some would be fed in cages for a year or two and then prepared on a barbecue.

…Love (god), have faith (in god) and, most importantly, hope (that there is a god)
If there is a god, then the whole concept of life in its formation is a crap and I hate being conscious to witness it. But even if some of the conceptions about god (monotheistic, polytheistic, what ever...) happened to be the truth, and I ended up being questioned, he can put me straight to hell; but before I even think of answering to anything he, she, it has to ask me, before even asking “who is asking?”, I would insist on one question: Why all the suffering? Then we can pass on to “Did you love me enough?” and stuff.
“I have never seen you before. Now you say that you’ve been watching me all the time. YOU should have loved ME more.”
If you analyze carefully, the very possibility of the existence of an entity with those characteristics and of such actions is an oxymoron, but if god exists, that thing is a complete moron in its ways and attitudes. You are insulting the very idea of god as a symbol of perfection. God would be different than that.

…If god would exist, world would be a place of happy (yet boring) life for all its creatures
But if god doesn’t exist, then we have to quit with ridiculous, hurtful, discriminating practices that are creating tensions and hostilities. Resources we spend to defend ‘ourselves’ from ‘others’ (those who follow different cult &/or have less then us) we can redirect into something useful. Something that will give some people a chance to live their life as humans, just as we wish for ourselves, don’t we? We can replace all meaningless hours of studying prayers and fictional scenarios with teaching kids about birds and bees and other things useful for survival. If we educate boys and girls, we don’t have to keep them away from each others or cover them like peaces of furniture.
If there is no god, there is no one watching you in your most intimate moments and your thoughts are yours and yours alone. If there is no god people can stop thinking of god and maybe there’ll be less schizophrenia. You are only one responsible: no one to judge you, but no one to forgive you either.
If we don’t have presumed enemies in a shape of those who have interest in a “wrong” sex or eat with the wrong hand, we have more time to think about things that will make someone happy. If we don’t have to waste our time debating on whose version is the right one, we can spend our time and ‘money’ to give everyone time of their life.

…Facing the fact that you have to vanish; it’s a sad, sad fact, yet…
If there is no god, then world is so exciting. If we don’t have to close ourselves into ideologies, long ago ran over by our understanding of nature, instead of practicing same verses from the same book every day, we can every day read something new which will deepen our perception and expand our vision, so that we can become more useful for ourselves, people around us and wider society. I mean, we will all die anyway; what ever we do to each others. If we don’t have to fight about god we can be friends. We already don’t exist in a future; why make it harder on each others while we do? We all exist in a same relative space in a same relative time, witnessing same events of what we call present. If there was a god, being self-conscious would be ‘a curse and a blessing’. Knowing that we exist with the expiry date fills no one with extreme satisfaction.
But if there is no god, that’s just how things are no matter how we feel about it. So we can let the sorrow go and focus on our gift.
Our existence as a part of the universe and the incredible chemistry of life feel so meaningless, yet so limitless. Knowing that all the atoms in our body have once been particles of some star, which means that we existed billions of years ago just not assembled together in this way… If there is no god, then we are a star dust in an exalted state. Although we have to die and disintegrate, isn’t it unusually liberating to realize that our life has no meaning to anyone but ourselves and those whose life we make impact on, with our actions, along the way?
Even if you believe deeply, even if you are elevated and stimulated and motivated for incredible deeds by the thought that ‘he’ is watching you, just imagine for one moment, if there is no god, what a wonderful world this could be.