That would be difficult. Most money in none Catholic churches is for that single church, and often that is redistributed to local services like soup kitchens and such. So if we mean how much was made for say, the church staff, building repairs/remodels... I have no idea how one would even begin.

So it's safe to say they may be the richest... Company?(Not quite sure Organization maybe...club?) on this planet. It's sure a thing to ponder.

No, that would be the Free Masons.

And again, most of that money goes right back into community Services.


Edit:
It could be argued they are the Religious Orginization with the most influence.

Of that there is little doubt... at Least in America that is.

Edit: I just read an earlier post and remembered something... Bible sales, how many of those are sold every year? Like millions isn't it?

Different Bibles... Catholic, New James(or whatever), Etheopon... no idea.

Anything done by Churches ruled by the Pope. I don't care for learning so would ruled be the right word for this situation?

Catholoism.


...I massacred that word.

Catholicism. Noth!n's a Catholic.

Penn and Teller on Catholicism:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e3XXB9LmrI[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NTqU6-OUlw[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhVMkXcoEI[/video]

Seeing as I don't have the luxury of waiting for my Suck-ass internet to load those video's I'm going to guess that Penn and Teller make the Catholic religion look like a bunch of bullshit.

God and world religion have almost nothing in common...if religion is mental poison,that doesn t means divinity doesn t exists...on the other hand...it might not exist as well...but i believe it does,not in the religions fashioned way,but in my way!and btw:if you can t see it,doesn t means it don t exists!

Fucking bunch of psuedo's the lot of ya. The only one who has shown any Intellectual prowess is PKB and he's wrong.

Firstly, the burden of proof is on the believe as one cannot prove the non-existance of something

Secondly, You automatically assume supernatural being which is a fallacy. God of gaps and all.

to all of you who are all "GOD IS DERP SADISTIC" you're not adressing the question and you're assuming a certain religion.

Haz, the burden of proof is always onthe accusor. If I had brought it up, saying God is real blah blah blah, the burden of proof would be on me.

No it isn't the burden of proof is the person who Is trying to say something exist as it's impossible to prove the non-existance of something.

It's like me trying to prove that zombies don't exist. I can't prove they don't exist...

If I say that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, the burden of proof is not on me. Everyone can agree because their has never been any evidence to the contrary. Automatically, if something has no evidence to support it, there is no harm in saying that it does not exist.

Now, I do understand that making the claim that something does not, in fact, exist, does create some kind of burden of proof. As an Atheist, I merely do not believe in God because there is absolutely no evidence to support that God exists. I do not claim, though, that it doesn't exist, because to be frank, that is not my place.

So in a way, PKB has a point. But, once he defends the belief in God, all bets are off. We are free to attack him for believing in something without any proof (zomg, my grandfather).

Actually, there happens to be a substantial amount of proof that God exists, some would say MORE proof that God exists than that You or I exist.

However, the problem with proving things is the criteria for what constitutes a proof. Different thought traditions (not only different philosophical traditions), even different language traditions, will have a different idea of what a proof is, and what is entirely coherent and solid logic in one tradition may not even be comprehend-able in another tradition or language. To a degree some traditions can communicate to each other based on some sort of commonality or link they may have, but on certain matters they have core differences, from differences in connotations of words to differences in concepts of reality to other kinds of differences which can't even be adequately expressed themselves.

Does this mean communication and eventual agreement on a matter is impossible? No, but the process is long, tedious, and relies on alot of things to happen WITHIN each tradition before they can communicate between traditions.


What am I saying?
An example: An empiricist (of a certain school) may say, "This computer is real and objective, because I am touching it and I see it work."
A Cartesian (of a certain school within that) may respond, "How does that prove anything? You are a fool who trusts arbitrary 'biological' devices. Clearly I cannot prove a computer exists, at least not to anyone else. What I see as a computer could really be nothing, or could be a walrus to someone else."
And the two could argue on for hours about the matter, each actually thinking the other to be an idiot who is making arbitrary arguments that mean very little and have little baring on the matter. At some point they may even realize things just aren't getting through. They may encounter and inability to answer each others questions, but that wouldn't be entirely a problem as the questions themselves would be ones that have incredibly little importance in the other school. To each other they might as well be a child asking a physicist if their particle accelerator has pictures of rabbits inside he can color.

To be able to communicate and establish agreement in such situations requires a considerable leap on one or both parts, a "conversion" if you will (on either or both sides) in the sense that a whole new way of thinking is required, or an especially shaking probably needs to present itself to one tradition, from that tradition, which cannot be resolved by that tradition.

Thus, one can say: "I know God exists because I saw an overwhelming beauty in a waterfall I happened upon at dusk, with the light reflecting in so many colors around me."
Another will say: "So? That's all just nature, it happens on its own from the natural reaction of light on water and such. No one did it."
The objection might not even be comprehensible to the first party, and the second party did not necessarily understand the actual reason why the even was a proof of God to the first either. The first may respond: "What does that matter?" or may just resolve to bewilderment that the second simply "didn't get it". Neither is entirely comprehensible to the other. It is almost as if they are speaking foreign languages, and in a way they are in fact speaking, and thinking, in different languages.