Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Lek]

Hmm, I think that's so minimal as to not count, like calling a splinter an injury (which it technically is). Besides, what you have there is disagreement about a shared resources. Couldn't she too claim to be persecuted?

I guess you're missing the whole point of what Jesus was discussing with his disciples. He was telling them that following him was not a way to avoid trials and to have an easy life. He was telling them that they would suffer because they followed him. Not only would be opposed from people from outside, but that a son would be turned against his parents and brother against sister. He spoke this way to show trials would not only come from institutions and enemies, but even from people close to them. There's no doubt that we all suffer trials and persecution, but that doesn't really apply to what he's saying. He was talking about the difficulty of following him.

---

That's of course totally wrong. States that declared "atheism" as the "official religion" (that's exactly what it became, the State a Communist church) were not promoting any ideology that is inextricably linked or logically follows from the term "atheist."

You can't say that about the Church-States of Christianity that ruled the Middle Ages. There is no sense in talking about what "logically follows" from Scripture as it's all open to vastly contradicting interpretations, the only way to solve that conundrum by having an official Church, which directly led to the violence. Their actions against heretics were largely viewed as consistent with their Christian faith, especially given that outside of the "rulers" "God appoints" to ensure justice (and what's more just than slaying the infidel before he corrupts more souls?) there is no one to offer an "official" interpretation of Scripture. Killing, hatred against non-believers, suppression of dissent, and the like is inextricably linked to the "Good Book."

Not to mention all the countries recently in Africa and eastern Europe and elsewhere (Ireland for example) that have had humanitarian catastrophes based on the doctrines of their faith. The leaders and participants in these events all claim to be Christian. I'm glad Lek can tell who the real Christians are.

I'm saying that whoever perpetuated these crimes were wrong. Then I'm saying that humanitarian catastrophes have been caused in the name of many things. There's been border disputes. Should we get rid of borders? There's nationalism. Should we get rid of nations? There's disagreements in philosophies. Should we never be allowed to disagree?