[vacri]

None of them try to make a profit, therefor they are non-profit.

This is outright willful ignorance. There are plenty of religious organisations whose purpose is to line the leaders' pockets with money.

Then you conflate 'religious organisation' with 'religion', which are two separate things. Yes, "Christianity" is nominally a "non-profit religion", but there are plenty of christian religious organisations that have fleeced their flock.

[danssig]

>This is outright willful ignorance. There are plenty of religious organisations whose purpose is to line the leaders' pockets with money.

As opposed to other non-profits? The willful ignorance here is yours. You don't seem to know how many big non-profits actually work. Do a search about United Way outrage for example.

[vacri]

Pardon me, did I say that? I was responding to the absolutist phrase "None of them". Stop putting words in my mouth.

Please, tell me anywhere in my comment you responded to where I made any mention or judgement of other kinds of non-profits, particularly "big" ones.

[danssig]

>There are plenty of religious organisations whose purpose is to line the leaders' pockets with money.

These seems to imply that other non-profits don't. Otherwise why point out one specific group?

[vacri]

That "one specific group" was the "one specific group" the prior comment was picking up on from it's parent. Did you bother to read the two comments before mine to get the context of my comment, or did you just see it and attack it out of the blue?

[danssig]

I did read it. Missed that part though, my mistake.

[ars]

Just because there are charlatans of that sort (which is undisputed) does not make what I said wrong.

[richardw]

There is a long continuum between charlatan and saint. A vanishingly small number of organisations are more occupied with their original reasons for being than with ensuring their leaders have a reasonable lifestyle.

A friend of mine, a priest, did some research that included how many priests still believe in a god. He wasn't allowed to release his findings.

(edit - didn't down-vote you, btw) (2nd edit. He continues to be a priest and has enormous integrity, so you can assume that he does believe in what he's doing. But he is pretty cynical about the institution.)

[vacri]

I heard a couple of priests-cum-public-atheists on the radio, saying that when they did their doctorates in divinity, where you learn a hell of a lot more of the history and politics of christianity, the running joke was "if you still believe in a god after learning all that, it just shows you weren't listening"

[tincholio]

The very fact that you can do a doctorate in 'divinty' or theology is a joke...

[vacri]

You're engaging in a textbook No True Scotsman fallacy.

Please note that we are talking about religious organisations here, not religions (the latter of which we can argue about until the cows come home)

[pbhjpbhj]

Whilst "No True Scotsman" is a logical fallacy it doesn't mean that a Scotsman would actually wear an England shirt at Murrayfield on a match day. That is it is not a logical proof but that does not mean that the assertion it counters is false. Just FWIW.