[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.