Heaven, I'm in heaven

[mpjh]

The fact that we have genetic code that predisposed us to altruist activity isn't a question of free will, it is a question of evolutionary adaption. Apparently the altruism gene helps us survive as human beings and is naturally selected over time.

Sure, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the possible influence of religions on their followers to perform altruistic acts. Moreso it becomes even more tenuous when you bring in that churches use organization to amplify the good works of their flocks. I alone would likely have no effect on anyone in Africa, but the many organizations that foster acts of altruism (religions among them) do in fact have a positive influence on the world around them.

I never said anything about brainwashing - so don't mix my arguments with porkenbeans's. I like some of his arguements but they are not mine.

No but you are certainly eager to pin all sorts of atrocities on the churches. I believe you said "Organized religion has a lot to answer for" and there is that whole "reign of terror" thing. Now you've added "against science" (what about the abject poverty, routine use of torture, etc.? Had to drop them because secular institutions are worse about it than the churches now, eh?). Despite our genetic encoding toward violence, and any number of other unsavory things; it's only now that genetics comes into play? Which is it? We're genetically encoded for our behavior and anyone who does anything wrong or right is actually only following their predetermined genetic destiny, or is it people have the ability to choose right from wrong and religions (among a great many other things) have an influence in that?

My point is simple. People engage in altruistic acts because it is in our nature as human beings to do so. It enhances our survival. I think it would be better if we gave credit where credit is due rather than having religions take credit for creating something when we actually are only following our human nature.

Only following our human nature, huh? I've got two words for you, Nightly News.

I prefer the show "Democracy Now." It is a much better source of news. The altruism instinct of human beings is evident all around us in the good works of individuals and organization. I think it is why we still have hope as a species. The trick will be to create the organization forms necessary to truly express our nature of being loving, freedom fighting, and just people. I think fundamental democracy in every organization is essential to meeting this goal.

Of course the dialectic conflict between centralism and democracy in any organization will always exist, but if we cannot find ways to express the democratic aspects more explicitly, we will not survive.

[porkenbeans]

mpjh, It is no use trying to carry on any kind of rational debate with these "Believers". They have been brainwashed their whole lives. It would take professionals that know how to deprogram cult members to do the job. How in the hell can you have a senseable discussion with someone that professes "Faith" as there proof ? We used to have faith in our tribal witchdoctor, Did faith make it so ?

Just read what you just wrote, then read each of CA's responses in this thread, and bathe in the irony.

I must be stupid, Maybe you could spell it out in words that I can understand ?

What you just wrote is the dogmatic atheist response to the religious, and yet that dogmatic response condemns those who follow dogma unquestioningly. Meanwhile, CA has been making reasoned arguments this entire thread with sources to back up his claims.

The claim that believers are "brainwashed their whole lives" is a logical fallacy on so many levels. First of all it's a total generalization. Secondly it's an unprovable positive claim. Thirdly it's nothing but an ad hominem. And it's strikingly ironic given you are spewing this fallacious nonsense about how believers are brainwashed with fallacious nonsense.

Next, stating that it is impossible to have a "rational debate" with a believer is absolutely laughable given the helping upon helping of rational debate that CA has served up. Especially so when you compare said debate with the dogmatic garbage which you just posted.

Thirdly, as if it wasn't evident enough already, you have obviously not read any of CA's posts since he has not once used his faith as evidence of his claims.

So why is all this ironic?

Well, I'll spell it out for you now. In saying that believers are impossible to argue with, you just proved that YOU are impossible to argue with because:

1) Your post contained no facts, citations, or evidence.
2) You committed several logical fallacies in the process.
3) You did not answer any of the points CA made in this thread, and I doubt you even bothered reading them.
4) You make an "argument" based on false accusations (ie that you can't argue with CA because he uses "faith" as evidence).

That is irony wrapped up in a tortilla.

Are you trying to tell me that people are not brainwashed from birth in religious families ?
I know first hand this is so. My remarks about reasonable debate is also true. I put forth a proposition about where religion comes from, and I don't see you or anyone else refuting it with any reason or facts. My comment about "Faith" was not directed at anyone in particular, It is just that these arguments always boil down to that. Science has proven over and over again that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Your extraordinary claim of the existence of a supernatural being has no proof what so ever, nada, zero, zilch.
Your side is ultimately cornered, And the only thing you have left to defend with, is FAITH. Well, I have faith too. But my faith is in reality, facts, and Science. If you ask me why I have faith in these things , I will tell you, It is because of reason and logic. Your faith has neither of these things. The only thing that your faith has to back it up is, wishful thinking that stems from fear. It has been drilled into the heads of millions sense the dawn of time. every religion that has come and gone, is rooted in the same superstitious poppycock.

[FabledIntegral]

Porky kid, until you get older, I suggest you sit on the sidelines for these arguments - as someone who doesn't believe in any particular religion, you still make my side of the argument look trashy. Whether or not they are brainwashed is irrelevant - it's apparent you are as well. It's impossible for someone not to be biased on nearly any matter of any subject simply because we are all products of our environment.

First hand knowledge on a situation, as you claim, is also useless because it's only a limited data pool. Nice generalization about all religious families.

It's even ironic that CA and a few others believe I'm on the narrow-minded side of atheism, yet now I'm seen in the forums telling someone else they are an extreme of what I apparently am. Amusing. If you're going to make a claim, use numbers and evidence (similar to the evidence I posted about how you lied in the GD thread, using your own quotes against you, which is evidence) to refute claims, don't just barge into a logical debate screaming "I'm right and you're wrong, whatever you say is irrelevant because your upbringing makes your logic inferior to mine! There is no point to this arguing, before you say anything you're already wrong!"

[CrazyAnglican]

I prefer the show "Democracy Now." It is a much better source of news. The altruism instinct of human beings is evident all around us in the good works of individuals and organization.

People are genetically encoded for violence, and other less savory things as well. Merely stating a genetic predisposition toward something does nothing to nullify religion's (or any institution's) influence to do a certain thing. To follow your line of reasoning would be to nullify any institution's influence on anyone.

Your argument makes no sense. It amounts to this, When it's atrocities committed by religious people it's the influence of religion. Anything nice a religious person might do is totally outside of the influence of religion, that's genetic encoding. Er, um but we still have to give people the credit for doing something nice. Just not any religious organization, not them nosiree.

I think it is why we still have hope as a species. The trick will be to create the organization forms necessary to truly express our nature of being loving, freedom fighting, and just people.

I agree. Certainly one of these institutions started two thousand years ago with Christ's admonitions to do such things as "Love one another as yourself", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "Love thy enemy". Admonitions whereby the Christian churches went from a minor sect in a backwater Roman province to the largest religion in the world (even including all forms of atheistism and agnosticism as one unit). Institutions with members that (in accordance with those admonitions) you agree (even cited a Pew poll in support) are tolerant, interested in civil-liberties, and civil justice. Now why would you stand against it when you have specifically described it as necessary?

So now you're using flag waving? Next I supppose that you would be going on toward the undemocratic nature of religious organizations, right? You do remember that the pope is elected, right? Churches routinely have lay leadership councils usually elected by the congregation. Leadership councils in turn have the right to call pastors, etc. You didn't imagine that churches were little feudal states lorded over by the dogmatic clergy, did you?

[mpjh]

I prefer the show "Democracy Now." It is a much better source of news. The altruism instinct of human beings is evident all around us in the good works of individuals and organization.

People are genetically encoded for violence, and other less savory things as well. Merely stating a genetic predisposition toward something does nothing to nullify religion's (or any institution's) influence to do a certain thing. To follow your line of reasoning would be to nullify any institution's influence on anyone. This argument makes no sense.

No I am not trying to nullify any institutions influence on anyone, I am simply pointing out that what most organizations claim as results of their existence are actually the results of the existence of the people in the organization. I am calling for a more direct recognition of that and a more transparent democratic process to enable it.

I think it is why we still have hope as a species. The trick will be to create the organization forms necessary to truly express our nature of being loving, freedom fighting, and just people.

I agree. It started two thousand years ago with Christ's admonitions to do such things as "Love one another as yourself", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "Love thy enemy". Admonitions whereby the Christian churches went from a minor sect in a backwater Roman province to the largest religion in the world (even including all forms of atheistism and agnosticism as one unit). Institutions with members that (in accordance with those admonitions) you agree (even cited a Pew poll) are tolerant, interested in civil-liberties, and civil justice. Now why would you stand against it when you have specifically described it as necessary? It's all the atrocities we're not genetically encoded for right? Now which ones are those?

So now you're using flag waving? Next I supppose that you would be going on toward the undemocratic nature of religious organizations, right? You do remember that the pope is elected, right? Churches routinely have lay leadership councils usually elected by the congregation. Leadership councils in turn have the right to call pastors, etc. You didn't imagine that churches were little feudal states lorded over by the dogmatic clergy, did you?

First, all human history is the result of the struggle of man within the confines of his nature. Clearly one aspect of our nature is that we can learn from past experiences. All human organizations are expressions of this struggle, whether to impede progress or to foster it. So, in simple terms, what I am saying is that we, and no other entity, are the arbiters of our future.

Get serious about the pope being elected democratically. He is elected by a small cohort of male "princes of the church" that he and other popes appoint. Imagine an international primary and election of a pope. My, wouldn't that be wonderful?

[CrazyAnglican]

I prefer the show "Democracy Now." It is a much better source of news. The altruism instinct of human beings is evident all around us in the good works of individuals and organization.

People are genetically encoded for violence, and other less savory things as well. Merely stating a genetic predisposition toward something does nothing to nullify religion's (or any institution's) influence to do a certain thing. To follow your line of reasoning would be to nullify any institution's influence on anyone. This argument makes no sense.

No I am not trying to nullify any institutions influence on anyone, I am simply pointing out that what most organizations claim as results of their existence are actually the results of the existence of the people in the organization. I am calling for a more direct recognition of that and a more transparent democratic process to enable it.

So now you've completely killed your idea that religions do nothing to better the world. You'd have us believe that Christianity may not be any good, but those Christians, boy they're out in force helping out all over the world? I see. As for transparent democratic approach, you never answered my statement about the democracy inherent in many, if not most, churches. See the bottom of the post.

First, all human history is the result of the struggle of man within the confines of his nature. Clearly one aspect of our nature is that we can learn from past experiences. All human organizations are expressions of this struggle, whether to impede progress or to foster it. So, in simple terms, what I am saying is that we, and no other entity, are the arbiters of our future.

Absolutely, and the Christian religion advocates taking responsibility for our own sins. Each person, within the scripture and within their own conscience, makes ammends for them through penitence. Each person is responsible for their own shortcomings and each person is called to develop the gifts they have received for the betterment of those around them. It's fundamental Christian doctrine that all roads lead to two destinations, and that it's the individual's responsibility to choose wisely the ones we travel. Keep going the church is looking better and better.

Get serious about the pope being elected democratically. He is elected by a small cohort of male "princes of the church" that he and other popes appoint. Imagine an international primary and election of a pope. My, wouldn't that be wonderful?

And yet you completely ignored the rest of the democratic institutions of the churches, can I take that as concession on that point or are you going to try to convince me that my fellow congregants didn't just vote to place me on the leadership council?

[CrazyAnglican]

It's even ironic that CA and a few others believe I'm on the narrow-minded side of atheism,

For the record I don't think you're narrow minded and Porky's pretty cool too. I get into debates, but I don't ever let that color how I see people. They just don't agree; no harm there. Just thought I'd pipe up on that one.

[FabledIntegral]

It's even ironic that CA and a few others believe I'm on the narrow-minded side of atheism,

For the record I don't think you're narrow minded and Porky's pretty cool too. I get into debates, but I don't ever let that color how I see people. They just don't agree; no harm there. Just thought I'd pipe up on that one.

Nah - porky is a kid that doesn't ever respond to people's actual evidence. In essence, he merely just says "you're dumb," using outdated expressions and boosting his own self-ego.

[mpjh]

I prefer the show "Democracy Now." It is a much better source of news. The altruism instinct of human beings is evident all around us in the good works of individuals and organization.

People are genetically encoded for violence, and other less savory things as well. Merely stating a genetic predisposition toward something does nothing to nullify religion's (or any institution's) influence to do a certain thing. To follow your line of reasoning would be to nullify any institution's influence on anyone. This argument makes no sense.

No I am not trying to nullify any institutions influence on anyone, I am simply pointing out that what most organizations claim as results of their existence are actually the results of the existence of the people in the organization. I am calling for a more direct recognition of that and a more transparent democratic process to enable it.

So now you've completely killed your idea that religions do nothing to better the world. You'd have us believe that Christianity may not be any good, but those Christians, boy they're out in force helping out all over the world? I see. As for transparent democratic approach, you never answered my statement about the democracy inherent in many, if not most, churches. See the bottom of the post.

First, all human history is the result of the struggle of man within the confines of his nature. Clearly one aspect of our nature is that we can learn from past experiences. All human organizations are expressions of this struggle, whether to impede progress or to foster it. So, in simple terms, what I am saying is that we, and no other entity, are the arbiters of our future.

Absolutely, and the Christian religion advocates taking responsibility for our own sins. Each person, within the scripture and within their own conscience, makes ammends for them through penitence. Each person is responsible for their own shortcomings and each person is called to develop the gifts they have received for the betterment of those around them. It's fundamental Christian doctrine that all roads lead to two destinations, and that it's the individual's responsibility to choose wisely the ones we travel. Keep going the church is looking better and better.

Get serious about the pope being elected democratically. He is elected by a small cohort of male "princes of the church" that he and other popes appoint. Imagine an international primary and election of a pope. My, wouldn't that be wonderful?

And yet you completely ignored the rest of the democratic institutions of the churches, can I take that as concession on that point or are you going to try to convince me that my fellow congregants didn't just vote to place me on the leadership council?

Actually, I don't see the Christian soldiers being a particularly different influence on the world than Al Qaeda. They both are killing innocents in the name of their god.

[CrazyAnglican]

Actually, I don't see the Christian soldiers being a particularly different influence on the world than Al Qaeda. They both are killing innocents in the name of their god.

Should we take that as a concession of the above points then, as you've refuted none of them?


You certainly can't make this particular one stick either, though. Which of these American soldiers has claimed to be killing innocents in the name of God? Which religious leaders have advocated the killing of civilians in the name of God? Al Queda is a group that specifically targets civilians. They release videotapes of there acts. They have radical Imams that advocate their actions quite publicly (quite in opposition to most Islamic clerics). US soldiers are brought up on charges for "humiliating" prisoners. If you have any evidence to support that ridiculous claim then post it. At this point you're just trying to make value statements to wriggle free as logic has clearly failed you.

[OnlyAmbrose]

mpjh, It is no use trying to carry on any kind of rational debate with these "Believers". They have been brainwashed their whole lives. It would take professionals that know how to deprogram cult members to do the job. How in the hell can you have a senseable discussion with someone that professes "Faith" as there proof ? We used to have faith in our tribal witchdoctor, Did faith make it so ?

Just read what you just wrote, then read each of CA's responses in this thread, and bathe in the irony.

I must be stupid, Maybe you could spell it out in words that I can understand ?

What you just wrote is the dogmatic atheist response to the religious, and yet that dogmatic response condemns those who follow dogma unquestioningly. Meanwhile, CA has been making reasoned arguments this entire thread with sources to back up his claims.

The claim that believers are "brainwashed their whole lives" is a logical fallacy on so many levels. First of all it's a total generalization. Secondly it's an unprovable positive claim. Thirdly it's nothing but an ad hominem. And it's strikingly ironic given you are spewing this fallacious nonsense about how believers are brainwashed with fallacious nonsense.

Next, stating that it is impossible to have a "rational debate" with a believer is absolutely laughable given the helping upon helping of rational debate that CA has served up. Especially so when you compare said debate with the dogmatic garbage which you just posted.

Thirdly, as if it wasn't evident enough already, you have obviously not read any of CA's posts since he has not once used his faith as evidence of his claims.

So why is all this ironic?

Well, I'll spell it out for you now. In saying that believers are impossible to argue with, you just proved that YOU are impossible to argue with because:

1) Your post contained no facts, citations, or evidence.
2) You committed several logical fallacies in the process.
3) You did not answer any of the points CA made in this thread, and I doubt you even bothered reading them.
4) You make an "argument" based on false accusations (ie that you can't argue with CA because he uses "faith" as evidence).

That is irony wrapped up in a tortilla.

Are you trying to tell me that people are not brainwashed from birth in religious families ?
I know first hand this is so. My remarks about reasonable debate is also true. I put forth a proposition about where religion comes from, and I don't see you or anyone else refuting it with any reason or facts. My comment about "Faith" was not directed at anyone in particular, It is just that these arguments always boil down to that. Science has proven over and over again that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Your extraordinary claim of the existence of a supernatural being has no proof what so ever, nada, zero, zilch.
Your side is ultimately cornered, And the only thing you have left to defend with, is FAITH. Well, I have faith too. But my faith is in reality, facts, and Science. If you ask me why I have faith in these things , I will tell you, It is because of reason and logic. Your faith has neither of these things. The only thing that your faith has to back it up is, wishful thinking that stems from fear. It has been drilled into the heads of millions sense the dawn of time. every religion that has come and gone, is rooted in the same superstitious poppycock.

More irony.

I have made no mention of my faith whatsoever. Nor has CA. There has not been a single argument from "faith" in this thread.

You on the other hand have made several unsubstantiated dogmatic and completely unrelated claims. Go back in this thread, and find me something that CA has posted which you think is unreasonable or shows some sort of logical fallacy. I picked apart a SINGLE PARAGRAPH of blather you posted and identified three logical fallacies. In the same sentence. So much for "reason and logic."

If you think that "Are you trying to tell me that people are not brainwashed from birth in religious families?" qualifies as an argument I suggest you peacefully leave this thread before you go about embarrassing atheists with your unsubstantiated opinions any further.

If you want to start a debate about philosophical arguments for/against the existence of a god, by all means start a thread for it and I will be happy to discuss it with you, provided you decide to back away from your stance of "because you are a theist you are a closed-minded moron." Oh the irony of such a line of thought KILLS me.

I could go about identifying the various blasphemies against logic you just committed, but the irony-meter of this thread just might blow its top if I did, so I'll leave it to the reader to find them for themselves. It's like "Where's Waldo," but easier.

[mpjh]

Actually, I don't see the Christian soldiers being a particularly different influence on the world than Al Qaeda. They both are killing innocents in the name of their god.

Should we take that as a concession of the above points then, as you've refuted none of them?


You certainly can't make this particular one stick, though. Which of these American soldiers has claimed to be killing innocents in the name of God? Which religious leaders have advocated the killing of civilians in the name of God? Al Queda is a group that specifically targets civilians. They release videotapes of there acts. They have radical Imams that advocate their actions quite publicly (quite in opposition to most Islamic clerics). US soldiers are brought up on charges for "humiliating" prisoners. If you have any evidence to support that ridiculous claim then post it. At this point you're just trying to make value statements to wriggle free as logic has clearly failed you.

We seemed to have lost a certain perspective ever since the fire bombing of Tokyo, the fire bombing of Dresden, and the atomic bombs dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Before WWII Gernica was considered a horrific slaughter of innocents by the Nazi air force against a town that in which some Basque rebels lived. The Picasso painting of that terrible event still hangs as a monument to the outrage of decent people against that action.

Now we routinely engage in military events that kill far more innocent people that were killed in Gernica. Furthermore, we use economic violence that causes many, many more innocents to suffer. There is an estimate that over 500,000 children died of disease and starvation in Irag BEFORE the war as a result of economic sanctions barring trade in medical supplies and food. Since the initiation of this last war in Iraq we have killed over a million civilians, destroyed the sanitation system, and wounded many more.

I fail to see how these actions, by Christian soldiers, further democracy in the world. The CIA's own estimate is that there are more, not less, terrorists in the world as a result of that

[OnlyAmbrose]

Actually, I don't see the Christian soldiers being a particularly different influence on the world than Al Qaeda. They both are killing innocents in the name of their god.

When was the last time you met or heard of a Christian soldier killing innocents in the name of God?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Yes, I likely would. I am experienced with the Maryknoll missionaries and they have had just such experiences. Many people fight the "food distributions" in their countries; seeking democracy and control over their own country and its resources. Too many times the "food distribution" is a product of external control and permanent dependence.

So explain to me the wrong in the Roman Catholic Church accepting voluntary donations from the faithful to donate to the hungry?

[mpjh]

Nothing

[OnlyAmbrose]

Nothing

Ok, so given that there is "nothing" wrong with the RCC donating money to the hungry, will you concede that it is good that the RCC uses its infrastructure and resources to donate money to the hungry?

[mpjh]

Nope, I would say it is a neutral thing at best. The priests that I know personally that were involved in the distribution of food in China and Korea reported that too often the food was used to coerce cooperation with the church authorities at best the the corrupt government at worst. In Latin America, a number of these priests have taken up liberation theology and fought more to help the people grow food and manage their local economy that to distribute food from America.

[CrazyAnglican]

We seemed to have lost a certain perspective ever since the fire bombing of Tokyo, the fire bombing of Dresden, and the atomic bombs dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Before WWII Gernica was considered a horrific slaughter of innocents by the Nazi air force against a town that in which some Basque rebels lived. The Picasso painting of that terrible event still hangs as a monument to the outrage of decent people against that action.

Now we routinely engage in military events that kill far more innocent people that were killed in Gernica. Furthermore, we use economic violence that causes many, many more innocents to suffer. There is an estimate that over 500,000 children died of disease and starvation in Irag BEFORE the war as a result of economic sanctions barring trade in medical supplies and food. Since the initiation of this last war in Iraq we have killed over a million civilians, destroyed the sanitation system, and wounded many more.

I fail to see how these actions, by Christian soldiers, further democracy in the world. The CIA's own estimate is that there are more, not less, terrorists in the world as a result of that

We went over this. The ability to kill more and more people with greater efficiency is a direct effect of the application of scientific knowledge to warfare. You yourself mentioned that there are atheists in the same war zones, committing the same acts, and yet they aren't that important as they cannot be used to castigate institutions that you apparently have it in for.

When a secular country sends atheists, Christians, Muslims, Bhuddists, Pagans, and any number of it's citizenry to war to further, it's own interests, it is not the fault of any religion. Point blank. You are refering to American soldiers who happen to be Christian. What of the ones over there who are doing their best to comfort and support the local population without commiting any sort of atrocities? Are they doing good in the world, or is that a genetically encoded response so that you can once again refuse to admit the good that religions do despite the preponderance of evidence given from various sources over the past six pages?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Nope, I would say it is a neutral thing at best. The priests that I know personally that were involved in the distribution of food in China and Korea reported that too often the food was used to coerce cooperation with the church authorities at best the the corrupt government at worst. In Latin America, a number of these priests have taken up liberation theology and fought more to help the people grow food and manage their local economy that to distribute food from America.

That would have been a great paragraph for links to reliable sources. If we were going off of "personal experiences" I could list all sorts of people who could give quite opposite accounts.

[mpjh]

Such is life.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Such is life.

You know, when one side of the arguments makes an argument, and all the other side has the say is "well I know this guy who said..." most rational individuals would call it a good time for the latter side to concede a point and move on.

[CrazyAnglican]

Certainly, my own brother lives in the Republic of Georgia much of the time and does much work with the poor there. He's a monk; great guy, I'm quite fond of him.

[mpjh]

Look, I have been alive for a while now. I have seen and experience some things of significance. One is the Catholic church in missionary action. If you don't want to take my experience seriously, I can't force you. But my experience is valid and those priests are real, and still at it I add. If you want to reject this information, such is life.

[CrazyAnglican]

He's not saying that he rejects your experience, nor that he thinks you are making anything up. Just as FI stated earlier it's just not that compelling because everyone has their own experience and for every priest that says X there is a friar that says Y. It's from incomplete data at best, and you've not cited anything to suggests that it's more widespread than just those priests.

Admittedly I used this line of reasoning with you earlier, but it was in the context of you claiming that 70% of Christians believeing such and such. At that point, I've met and spoken to a lot of Christians all over the world it would have been likely that I'd met one or two of them. So, it was at least a reasonable use of the technique given that it wasn't my entire argument.

In your use, you are just saying "I've met priests that say X" and you're probably right, but it states nothing about the overall effectiveness and benificence of the RCC. You can't possibly know the inner workings of all of the aid programs. Perhaps what you are using to base your "neutral at best" rating for the RCC's aid programa has to do more with one or two people in the hierarchy of that particular program which would not be reflective of the entire organization. Maybe so or maybe not, but we don't have enough information from your experience, when others state the exact opposite from their experiences.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Look, I have been alive for a while now. I have seen and experience some things of significance. One is the Catholic church in missionary action. If you don't want to take my experience seriously, I can't force you. But my experience is valid and those priests are real, and still at it I add. If you want to reject this information, such is life.

CA has been around for quite awhile too ( @ CA ). Can't say that I have but I know plenty of people who have, and we can toss "I knew this one guy" comments around til the cows come home and we won't get anywhere. What's more, generalizing based on the testimony of a guy you know is ridiculously fallacious, so once again if that is all you've got this would be a great time for a "Wow, I never knew religion could have a positive influence on the world. I'll keep that in mind. Now let's move on to discuss something else of interest."