Post: #51

(09-23-2011 07:27 AM)Gmac Wrote:  Exactly my point. Thanks.

Yeah, but what I'm trying to explain to you is that atheism isn't a "lack of belief". That's what you don't understand, for some reason.

Agnosticism is the lack of belief. "A"(no/negative) "gnosticism" (knowing/belief).

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. "A" (not/negative) "theism" (deity worship).

Let me ask you a question:

"As an atheist, do you believe that there is no god"?

If you answered "yes", then you have a belief. There is no logical way around it. You firmly believe that there is no god. You have a belief. You don't lack belief, you just have a different belief. Agnostics lack belief.

We can agree to disagree. I'm cool with that. But if you aren't happy with that, then prove me my logic wrong.

Post: #52

deleted

Post: #53

(09-23-2011 12:13 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

(09-23-2011 07:27 AM)Gmac Wrote:  Exactly my point. Thanks.

Yeah, but what I'm trying to explain to you is that atheism isn't a "lack of belief". That's what you don't understand, for some reason.

Agnosticism is the lack of belief. "A"(no/negative) "gnosticism" (knowing/belief).

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. "A" (not/negative) "theism" (deity worship).

Let me ask you a question:

"As an atheist, do you believe that there is no god"?

If you answered "yes", then you have a belief. There is no logical way around it. You firmly believe that there is no god. You have a belief. You don't lack belief, you just have a different belief. Agnostics lack belief.

We can agree to disagree. I'm cool with that. But if you aren't happy with that, then prove me my logic wrong.

Nomenclature, semantics... like Samseau said. It's not worth arguing over, but it's silly to call it a belief for the reasons megaframe mentioned.

For anyone who else who wants to be schooled:

Quote:Understanding a Lack of Belief

http://www.lackofbelief.com/

Post: #54

Quote:And so on and so forth. Therefore, every non-christian person is an Achristian, and same for Aislam. If you're not a Christian, then you probably have a firm belief that the christian god doesn't exist, unless you're agnostic. Repeat for every other religion in the world.

You mean these "reasons"? I would answer "that is correct" to his chain of logic here. How is that not correct? He proves my point, and by you acknowledging his logic, you prove my own.

He proves my point here when he states "have a firm belief that the christian god doesn't exist, unless you're agnostic." Did you read that? Do you see it?

To paraphrase, "if you do not believe in god, you have a firm belief that god does not exist (christian, Islamic, any, whatever..) unless you are agnostic". I'll state it again: FIRM BELIEF, unless you are agnostic.

He logically comes around and sees where the logic leads, but still doesn't realize his own conclusion, or can't consciously acknowledge it, and ends with:

Quote: It's a logical fallacy to call a lack of belief an actual belief.

I'm not sure how he can reach this conclusion. Its just flat out wrong, no offense megaframe. I mean, it would technically be right if atheists "lack belief". But, by his own admission, they have a "firm belief".

Can you tell me that atheists don't firmly believe that there is no god?

If you cannot, then they have belief.

I know it is uncomfortable for some atheists to think that their enlightened view is actually a belief like the religions that they haughtily distance themselves from, but it is. Its just a different belief. Its the belief that god does not exist.

The only "lack of belief" that megaframe's conclusion would apply to is agnosticism.

I don't agree with the assertion that it's "just semantics". Its the core difference between agnosticism and atheism, actually. Its pretty important insofar as these philosophies go.

What I do agree with you about is that its really pointless to argue it any more between ourselves. I like a good debate, but its clear that we just see the philosophies differently.

Cheers!

Post: #55

Quote:For anyone who else who wants to be schooled:

Quote:Understanding a Lack of Belief

http://www.lackofbelief.com/

[/quote]

Schooled?

I read this entire diatribe. I find it illogical on several points, and it splits hairs that don't exist (separating "knowledge" from "belief" as meaning two different things in the context of spirituality, for practical purposes.)

Look, if you want to accept his semantic logic, which really only exists in the framework of his article and never in the general world of religious philosophy, then that's fine. But this is the first time that you introduced it and therefore its a little dishonest to use it as a conclusive piece of logic this far into the conversation.

You haven't yet described yourself as a "gnostic-atheist" or an "agnostic atheist". Two descriptions which are essential to this mans logic. I find them contradictory. This guy is afraid of letting go of his atheist affiliation but actually sees the world from an agnostic view. In my mind, he's unnecessarily "bargaining" with philosophical terms for some reason.

If you are arguing your point of view from his "agnostic atheist" or "gnostic atheist" categorizations, then please let me know. Then, I can redefine the argument. We might actually conclude that we were arguing the same point of view all along, and calling it two different things. However, like I before stated, in my opinion is personal hierarchy is unnecessary to define all the points of view and a bit strange in its logic.

Post: #56

I suppose logically anything I say I do or do not believe in is a belief by a simple definition but this is just oversimplifying it.
With your question above do you believe this exists or do you not believe this exists I could quickly rack up millions of beliefs but it's hard to argue that all these 'beliefs' are on par with somebody's belief in religion.

My belief that Pamela Anderson doesn't want to date me doesn't really affect my life, there is no support group, weekly meetings, website etc

Post: #57

edit: wrong discussion

Post: #58

(09-23-2011 12:22 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  Hey ON, how've you been?

So far so good. Check PM.

Quote:A large political group acts like a large political group, in general. The only difference here is where they believe that their moral guidance comes from. In the end, who cares when the moral guidance is corrupted either way and the result is the same? However, like I before stated, at least religious morality isn't relativistic (although changing in the new America) and therefore isn't as easily changed moment from moment at the whim of leaders.

The problem here in America is that religious people try to enforce their religious beliefs on every one of us through the laws. "Days of prayer" and various city meeting prayers, bible/creationism teaching programs trying to get into the public school, "in god we trust" on money, Catholic supremacy in SCOTUS (how in the hell they could decide the religion-related cases when 6 out of 9 justices are not just religious but they all are Catholics???). Look, those idiots claimed that "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is not expression of religion. Of course they did not explain what it is - and because of that I always refuse to say the Pledge.

In the famous IR marriage case the judge said it clear why he doesn't allow IR marriage: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. This is a good indicator of how strong the religious poisoning really is.

More modern example was Proposition 8 here in CA. If you read the trial transcript, it all comes down to "Baby Jesus cries every time a dude fucks another dude in the ass". WTF? This is 21st century, and we still have enough idiots around who believe diabetes could be healed by prayers.

Quote:Umm...Just because you don't follow the "rituals, traditions, and rules" does not make you an atheist. As a human, i have the ability to think, and I can accept the fact that it is impossible for me to have the information that allows me to decide if there is a god or not. Hence, I would be an agnostic and not an atheist.

Atheists are not like HIV deniers who deny it despite all the evidence presented. It is similar to extraterrestrial life - sure, there is a possibility it may be there. But until we see the evidence it is there, we assume it is not.
It is the same for atheists. None of us knows there is no god. Ask a typical atheist and he'll tell you that he'll believe in god as soon as there is reasonable evidence that god really exists.

Politically I'd expect both atheists and agnostics to act the same. I have never seen an atheist group stating that religion should be outlawed, but I'm tired from attempts of religion groups to shove more and more of their fucking god into my life.

Quote:Bolshevik communism

It had nothing to do with atheism, and the most obvious evidence was the restoration of churches in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Indeed, once gaining the power, the Bolsheviks in 1917-1923 put a lot of pressure on the church - but the reasons were purely political, the church at that time had A LOT of influence on the population, especially rural population, and basically acted as a quasi-government. A young and weak (at that time) Bolshevik government could not afford to have the competition. But once the government power grew, and church was put in her place it should be - taking care of people's souls and beliefs, and getting out of politics completely - everything got back very fast.

Quote:With the exception of the abortion doctor, all done for political purposes, not religious.

No, no. The organizers may do it for political reasons, but for the people who are actually exploding themselves in those buses their reasons are not political. "Die and murder others" is a pretty specific mindset, and the easiest way to achieve it is religious.

Quote:We can count communist murder of Christian religious leaders as a "one-for-one" for the abortion doctor thing. Although, the atheist communist murders far outnumber abortion doctor murders.

Communists and atheists are different ideologies. Basically there are three parts of classic Communism as based on Marx: sociology, economics and philosophy. Out of those three the first two have nothing to do with religion. Marx philosophy is atheistic, but not anti-religious; it is more about having the religion under the government control.

The majority of Nothern Europe nations population are atheists, but they definitely aren't communists. At the same time, Laos Communists did nothing to suppress the religion.

Post: #59

(09-23-2011 11:15 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  Most of the cases involving Catholic priests breaking their vows of celibacy are from the small group of gay radicals in the Boston diocese centering on Paul Shanley.

Dude, he is not talking about "breaking vows of celibacy", this is not a CRIME. May be violation of some church rules, but personally I don't give any shit if some priest and another adult dude enjoy each others company. The problem here is pedophilia which is not about just "breaking vows of celibacy", but is a felony.

And what about Ireland, apparently the whole country is made of gay radicals?

Post: #60

(09-23-2011 12:44 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  Can you tell me that atheists don't firmly believe that there is no god?

Yes, most atheists I talked to just say, "show me the real evidence the god exists, and I'll believe; so far I haven't seen any". In fact the lack of such obvious evidence from a claimed omnipotent superpower who supposedly wants everyone to be sure about its existence is something which speaks of itself.

Post: #61

(09-23-2011 12:44 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  I'm not sure how he can reach this conclusion. Its just flat out wrong, no offense megaframe. I mean, it would technically be right if atheists "lack belief". But, by his own admission, they have a "firm belief".

Can you tell me that atheists don't firmly believe that there is no god?

If you cannot, then they have belief.


The only "lack of belief" that megaframe's conclusion would apply to is agnosticism.

Yes, there are atheists that don't firmly believe that there is no god. A lot of them actually don't believe in a God because there isn't sufficient evidence for any god. I should have included atheists along with agnostics. My mistake. However, there are quite a few religious people who firmly believe in their god, and wouldn't believe otherwise even if perfect evidence was shown, since they can simply vanish it away with rationalization that it's evil spirits or something.

That being said, I think you missed the point of my argument. Do we call Buddhists Achristianists? No? Well, there you go. Personally I'd prefer the term "not religious" instead of atheist, but that's just the use of words.

Post: #62

(09-23-2011 06:36 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(09-23-2011 12:44 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  Can you tell me that atheists don't firmly believe that there is no god?

Yes, most atheists I talked to just say, "show me the real evidence the god exists, and I'll believe; so far I haven't seen any". In fact the lack of such obvious evidence from a claimed omnipotent superpower who supposedly wants everyone to be sure about its existence is something which speaks of itself.

I find it amusing people wanting to see proof of the Christian God

Proof would sort of defeat the purpose of Christianity...

Post: #63

It's not about religion when people try to control others.

Adolf Hitler, Mao and Stalin were all big-time atheists. Together they've caused more misery than Chrstianity ever achieved during the religious wars after the reformation.

It's just angry people who convince large followings of irresponsible masses to follow them down a path of destruction. The ACLU is as bad as the other side. Strong values, integrity and charity amongst your average citizen (good men) is the best guard against these types, and when those values fail (when good men do nothing), tyrants come to power.

Post: #64

(09-24-2011 04:34 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  I find it amusing people wanting to see proof of the Christian God
Proof would sort of defeat the purpose of Christianity...

That's just one of many self-contradicting issues with the Christian religion. The Problem of Evil alone cannot be resolved. A Perfect Creator would create everything perfect, and it is obvious this is not the case. Then you have a problem with Omnipotence (can the god create a stone which he wouldn't be able to lift?) and so on. Note that so far I only focused on purely philosophical arguments; there are much, much more.

Post: #65

(09-25-2011 04:07 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(09-24-2011 04:34 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  I find it amusing people wanting to see proof of the Christian God
Proof would sort of defeat the purpose of Christianity...

That's just one of many self-contradicting issues with the Christian religion. The Problem of Evil alone cannot be resolved. A Perfect Creator would create everything perfect, and it is obvious this is not the case. Then you have a problem with Omnipotence (can the god create a stone which he wouldn't be able to lift?) and so on. Note that so far I only focused on purely philosophical arguments; there are much, much more.

How is it evil can not resolved?

In the bible God gives people and angels free-will to do / think as they please. I suppose you are referencing evil by actions? God didnt create evil it self. Evil is a by product of our actions.

What is "evil" to you?

Post: #66

(09-24-2011 05:26 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  It's not about religion when people try to control others.

Adolf Hitler, Mao and Stalin were all big-time atheists. Together they've caused more misery than Chrstianity ever achieved during the religious wars after the reformation.

Typical response. How many times do people have to destroy these arguments before people stop using them?

Hitler was not an atheist.

While Stalin and Mao were, they didn't perpetrate their atrocities because of their atheism. There is nothing inherent in atheism that necessarily leads to mass murder or genocide. With religion, there is.

The actions of totalitarians have far more in common with religious, rather than secular values.

Sam Harris says it well: "That the Killing Fields, the Gulag and the Holocaust were not the result of societies that became too attached to critical thinking, or too demanding of evidence."

Post: #67

There's too much since I last posted to respond to.

Its utterly ridiculous to claim that atheism had/has nothing to do with communism. That's some crazy historical revisionism. It was specifically central to the ability of communism to keep power, as written about in communist texts and the execution of social policy, and the eventual re-empowerment of the Russian Orthodox Church is a large reason why Russia is no longer communist. Since then, Putin has been critical to building the power of the Orthodox Church to strengthen nationalism in Russia. Nationalism is antithetical to communism, and can only be enacted through strong cultural unity as occurs through religious organizations such as the orthodox church. EVERY truly powerful group is based in powerful religion. ALL politics is based in human co-operation. Do you co-operate with the democrat/republican next door, promote him at work, lend him money at low interest rates, help him in business, and more because he is a Democrat/republican? Doubt it. But people do this all of the time in their TRUE political groups, generally based in religion. This cultural/religious unity and co-operation is the basis for true political power in the world. The power of other groups pales in comparison to powerful religious groups, and the only protection from powerful religious groups, that are not your own but might wish to exploit you, is through having a powerful religious group yourself. Sometimes, but increasingly rararely, this is also based in race. For instance, Russians who come to the USA often band together and form a political group that can wield power, based on their ethnicity. However, that eventually becomes diluted as they intermarry with society at large. That is why religious group power is lasting, because it is much less easily diluted than is ethnicity. Cultural/religious unity isn't necessarily about gaining power for the sake of gaining power, but to gain power to protect yourself from others who gain power and will use it to dis-empower you. Dis-enabling that cultural unity is the primary mechanism through which atheism empowers communism and dis-empowers populations, so that internationalist communism can keep power.

Atheism is intimately entwined with communism, for reasons I aforementioned and more, but that's too much to go into. If you are an atheist, you may not be a communist, but the effect that you have on the sociopolitical environment sets the stage for a communist state, like peanut butter and jelly, whether you like it or not. Stalin restoring churches was political, in response to extreme anti-Christian pre-Stalin Bolshevist influence, and they sure as hell weren't restored to the point where they were a political force as they are now in post communist Russia.

As an agnostic, believe me, I wish that there were a stronger enabler of national unity than religious tradition. I do. I don't like church or the crazy inefficiency and corruptness which permeates Christian Church doctrine and social policy in the west. I feel you, ON. I really do. I hate a lot of it as well. HOWEVER, the social structure that is provides, especially in the more effective eastern countries (North America is just fucked up, in terms of Christian religious unity and effectiveness-another discussion), is unbeatable in terms of political stability and power in defending themselves from outside influence. Basically, the things that enable a low crime, high family value, people centered society and government that maintains its freedom from communist control. Any society that you see losing power and crumbling, look at their religious unity and effectiveness. i guarantee you will be looking at a state which has become more and more secular, or multi-religious, over time. Essentially, that is the true social mechanism that allows the powers that be to get way with doing whatever the fuck they want.

If I were an Atheist, and had a family, i would go to Church just to be associated with and strengthen the political power of a group who will protect my families interests and freedom. Eve though i would be bored to tears, it would be smart politics.

Others: If you are an "atheist" who does not firmly believe that god doesn't exist Ie:because you have no proof that he does not, then I have some news for you, you are not an atheist. You are an agnostic. That's what an agnostic is. Man, oh man, at least know some definitions so that I dont site here and write long paragraphs based on the fact that you don't understand what we are talking about. You can't just "lump in" agnosticism with atheism, and call it an accident, when our discussion is based around those very different philosophies and terms.
For fucks sake.

ON, I disagree that most of those "religious" based terrorist acts were religious with the exception of the abortion doctor thing. The politics are extremely clear. And, I can even paint religious persecution of abortionists, at the top level, in a purely political light if I had to. It has to do with demographics and political power derived from them, I could hypothesize. Ie: the more people born to your religious group the more powerful that it will be. However, most religious people see it as religious, as do the murderers, and therefore I will concede that those murders are religious.

Any more "agnostic-atheists here"?

GMAFB

Post: #68

(09-25-2011 05:25 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  How is it evil can not resolved?

I'm surprised you are not familiar with the problem of evil. It is a well-known philosophical concept, and even has its own Wiki article. Here it is in a very simple form:

- If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
- The attributes of (Christian) God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
- Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

Check the article, it answers most of your questions.

Post: #69

(09-25-2011 08:00 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(09-25-2011 05:25 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  How is it evil can not resolved?

I'm surprised you are not familiar with the problem of evil. It is a well-known philosophical concept, and even has its own Wiki article. Here it is in a very simple form:

- If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
- The attributes of (Christian) God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
- Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

Check the article, it answers most of your questions.

This isnt a problem as far as im concerned. You cant put parameters on something such as a "God" and what he can/cant co-exist with.

Even if you wanna go this route, what attributes of God are consistent with "evil"?

Post: #70

(09-25-2011 11:36 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  Its utterly ridiculous to claim that atheism had/has nothing to do with communism. That's some crazy historical revisionism. It was specifically central to the ability of communism to keep power, as written about in communist texts and the execution of social policy, and the eventual re-empowerment of the Russian Orthodox Church is a large reason why Russia is no longer communist.

Hydro, this is definitely not the case. The Orthodox Church didn't change significantly between 1935 and 1990; its raise started when Soviet Union split apart, and everyone wanted to get a piece of it. Despite that, the church in modern Russia is no different from the church in Soviet Union - a speaker for the government in the religious masses, which always supports the government.

Quote:Since then, Putin has been critical to building the power of the Orthodox Church to strengthen nationalism in Russia. Nationalism is antithetical to communism, and can only be enacted through strong cultural unity as occurs through religious organizations such as the orthodox church. EVERY truly powerful group is based in powerful religion.

Nationalism in Russia is not religion-based at all, it has the same basis as general attitude toward illegal immigrants from Mexico here in US. It is worse in Russia because the immigrants usually do better than illegals here in US - there immigrants buy all the paperwork from the corrupt government officials, and through their family connections they got a lot of things easier than native Russian citizens.

The role of the government during Putin has been to suppress nationalism, not strengthen it. A lot of skinhead members were located and caught, and every one of them got pretty harsh sentences, ranging from eight years to life.

Quote:Atheism is intimately entwined with communism, for reasons I aforementioned and more, but that's too much to go into. If you are an atheist, you may not be a communist, but the effect that you have on the sociopolitical environment sets the stage for a communist state, like peanut butter and jelly, whether you like it or not.

This is a pretty common fallacy, which has been disproved before. Look at the list of least religious countries.

How many of them are communist, or have the stage for the communism?

Don't you think at least some of them have VERY strong national identity (Japan, for example), which is not based on religion?

Quote:Stalin restoring churches was political, in response to extreme anti-Christian pre-Stalin Bolshevist influence, and they sure as hell weren't restored to the point where they were a political force as they are now in post communist Russia.

They are at the same level now. In Soviet Union they were less visible, but they were less controlled - basically the Communist Party didn't give shit about churches unless they tried to play politics. The church in modern Russia is heavily involved in politics and have much more influence - but it is completely controlled by the government, with church leaders justifying through the bible/quaran everything the President says.

Quote:Basically, the things that enable a low crime, high family value, people centered society and government that maintains its freedom from communist control.

Well, here in America we have the corporate control. Living with both, I'm not sure it is significantly better comparing to communist control.

Quote:If I were an Atheist, and had a family, i would go to Church just to be associated with and strengthen the political power of a group who will protect my families interests and freedom.

The problem is that they're not protecting my family interests. They protect their own interests, which are either different from mine (i.e. abortion opposition), or completely irrelevant for me (i.e. gay marriage opposition).

Quote:Others: If you are an "atheist" who does not firmly believe that god doesn't exist Ie:because you have no proof that he does not, then I have some news for you, you are not an atheist. You are an agnostic.

So what difference it really makes? Seems like it is just a lot of people here think there is stigma associated with being an atheist.

Post: #71

OldNemesis pretty much covered it all better than I could...

Post: #72

ON, I PM'd you.

You concur. Gotcha, Gmac.

Post: #73

Quote:So what difference it really makes? Seems like it is just a lot of people here think there is stigma associated with being an atheist.

No difference to me. People were arguing about it. And misdefining, redefining terms. But I'm wrong. Its cool.

However, its not that its a "stigma" but a social mechanism as I described before. Technically, form a sociopolitical standpoint there should be no difference between agnostics, atheists, and religions. However, it seems to be the case that atheists are as ready to denigrate religions as religions are ready to denigrate secualrism/atheism. Case in point, ON's passionate display against all of the religious influence that he witnesses. On a larger scale, the suppression of religions through the influence of large scale communist atheism. So, they REALLY DO operate similarly. There arent enough agnostics to have any real world political history to point to, but in general, agnostics, as people, seem to have a more live and let live regarding everyone else's sociopolitical groups. As long as they aren't trying to oppress them, that is.

GMAC, do some research on the "Frankfurt School". Youtube is a good source.

Post: #74

Here you go ON, history and references about the practical execution of the communist state:

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union

Make sure that you reference some of the links int he "see also" at the bottom. You can see that my assertion before, about atheism and communism, definitely "is" the case.

and this quote by Vladimir Lenin:

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”

Karl Marx:

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism".

More History:

Marxism and religion

Many of the countries in your list ON, with a couple exceptions, for all intensive purposes, practice national socialism. That is, they practice co-operative economics formed under the unity of a single tribe. They are VERY unified in race and religion. This type of state is sociologically opposite to communism. National socialism is not the same as communism. However, I do agree that many of these states that were not already communist (exceptions being Vietnam, one or two others? I'm not going back to the list) are headed there through Cultural Marxism.

Post: #75

(09-26-2011 08:17 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  Here you go ON, history and references about the practical execution of the communist state:
Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union

That's a strange article. For example, look at the following incorrect quite:

"Communism required the abolition of religion [3]"

Now this is a very bold statement which should be properly grounded. And indeed, there is a reference. Now one would expect a reference to Marx or at least Lenin. Instead it links to some Froese, Paul. "'I am an atheist and a Muslim': Islam, communism, and ideological competition." Journal of Church and State 47.3 (2005). I'd say this is kinda retarded when they try to base their whole theory on such a statement.

The article correctly stated that "the Soviet Constitutions always guaranteed the right to believe", and the Communist efforts were concentrated on "legal measures that were designed to hamper religious activities, a massive volume of anti-religious propaganda as well as education, and through various other means". Well, it doesn't surprise me that some Christians see the attempts to remove "in god we trust" from our money as "Christian prosecution", but prosecution is still a different kind of thing.

Personally the article doesn't impress me. For example, the "persecutions" listed include the removal of religious curricula from public schools or dissolution of church as legal entity followed by confiscation of church property (it doesn't mention that the church asked the followers to oppose the Bolshevik government, and openly supported White Forces).

Quote:Make sure that you reference some of the links int he "see also" at the bottom. You can see that my assertion before, about atheism and communism, definitely "is" the case.

Most of them are just plain references, not links.

Quote:and this quote by Vladimir Lenin:
“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”
Karl Marx:
"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism".

There is a major gap between propaganda of atheism and persecution of Christians. For example, all freethinker groups in US propagate atheism, but not a single one of them persecuted a Christian. This is why the "Christian persecution complex" meme came up.