How to convert a skeptic - written for the faithful by a skeptic

[Scott Free]

With this post I mean to address the difficulty I perceive between skeptical reliance on consilience and the religionists reliance on faith.

Religionists don't realize that the skeptic doesn't use faith but relies on observation and evidence. This is demonstrated in the religionists insistence that when their faith is questioned they are being attacked. They feel that the evidence given by skeptics is also faith based. It is a question of social norms. The religionists are taught to take things as they are explained and believe they are true. This is can be a very ingrained system for someone raised in religion. They don't understand that a skeptic isn't doing the same thing. To the religionists it seems when a skeptic says "there is no god" that they are only looking at the subject from a particular viewpoint, the one they want to take, that the skeptic has faith in this view.

Likewise, many skeptics don't understand what it is like to have faith. The religionists can explain the concept all they want but it is likely going to fall on deaf ears. In my case I was a religionist before becoming skeptical so I do understand faith a little better than some other skeptics may. I'm not 100% sure of this but it is my suspicion. Often skeptics equate faith with ignorance or stupidity. I know this is a completely false understanding. Many religionists are amazingly intelligent.

The biggest difference is that religionists present themselves as knowing the whole truth. Skeptics know they don't know the whole truth but are engaged in finding it to the best of their ability. If you meet a skeptic that thinks he knows everything then you have met your first idiot skeptic (they do exist). It is little wonder then that skeptics tend to think very poorly of someone who claims to know everything.

To understand the skeptical mind and to convince the skeptic of their viewpoint the religionists need to understand how this process works. It is very different and foreign to the religionists but they would be well advised to understand it if they hope to stem the tide against belief.

So, for the religionists (please remember I was one once):

This is not an attempt to challenge your faith or belief but to demonstrate how you must argue and how the skeptic thinks. You can not use faith or any faith based arguments when talking to a skeptic - they will not work. Not because the skeptic doesn't want to believe or has faith in something else but because he/she has a specific process that they rely on. If you can use that process then you can convince the skeptic. I have seen it done. It will also make your arguments much better and more fun to read.

First: the skeptical mind does not work like everyone else's. Most people accept information they are given if it "makes sense to them." For the majority of people this is all the convincing that is required. This is why TV adds and propaganda work so well. This is definitely "faith" based, not faith in god, but faith in the message, the person giving the message or their own "good sense" to know the truth when they hear it. This is as far as the vast majority of people consider anything.

The skeptic, however, has a secondary process that kicks in and says "but." They question and doubt their own "good sense" their ability to know truth just by hearing it and they suspect the same of the person telling them whatever that message might be. They do this by looking for alternatives. Remember this is a secondary involuntary response to the message your giving! You can count on them giving you an alternative explanation. Think of it as an argument about why someone should be a Catholic or a Baptist but don't use theological arguments. Your not arguing with someone that considers faith even slightly valuable; they consider it a handicap.

Second: You must understand that the skeptic can only be persuaded if your evidence points to your explanation as being by far the most likely of the available alternatives. They are not going to be persuaded by your conviction or theological arguments. If anything they are just going to find them interesting from a sociological perspective; a source of amusement.

Third: If you are right you should be able to thwart all their alternatives or demonstrate that you by far mostly can (that is good enough). Do not feel insulted or under attack because they are throwing alternatives at you. This is immense fun for skeptics amongst themselves, they do it constantly and it may last years or lifetimes; it is the glue in many great friendships. It is the chance to prove they are right. The religionists doesn't get the same buzz from this exchange because they don't have the secondary response I mentioned above. It seems like a threat. In a sense it is but that is not the intention - the intention is to hear what you have to say! If they are arguing then they are also listening. Skeptics will not "shut off " just because they don't like what they are hearing; they are not using faith! If you want to defend your Messiah then you can not shy away from this argument. Do not let one little argument or hundreds drive you from the battle.

Fourth: Don't get lazy. You need good solid well researched arguments. You need to find viable alternatives to their beliefs and reasons yours are better. Saying "just believe me" over and over again will fail. You will never prove anything if you get lazy. You need to rely on many sources and all the great minds of history.

Fifth: there is no rush. Skeptics know there is no rush even if you don't. They are willing to take their time. You don't have to win every argument immediately. You only need to present alternatives to their arguments that are both logical and rational. If you find enough you will win. As I said above, I have personally seen skeptics converted. Possessing a skeptical mind I also played key roles in some of those conversions, though I didn't know it at the time. Now I regret it but that's a different topic.

Sixth: Understand what a skeptic means by "know." They don't mean believe, want, wish, think, fills a void, understand, personal experience, it's beautiful, etc... what they mean is:

1) They have examined all known alternatives and believe this explanation describes what they see the best.

2) The truth has been tested and reviewed properly or examined extensively that when applied by anyone the effect is the same. There is no room for personal experience here. It must be a universal truism.

3) The truth must stand up to reason and evidence. If you cannot explain it in plain words. If it requires emotion or hope then it isn't necessarily true. It must be explainable! Otherwise all your saying is "this is how I feel." I know all kinds of things that go against the way I feel. That doesn't change the facts and how I feel certainly doesn't effect the truth. Anything but these listed prerequisites is wish thinking.

Seventh: Admit when an alternative is a good argument. Skeptics know they can be wrong but your never going to convince one they're wrong about everything. Admitting defeat in one aspect of an argument does not mean the entire argument is lost. You need to look at their argument and find alternatives then represent your case. If you just keep pounding out the same arguments you will start to look foolish to the skeptic. That tactic might work on ordinary people but it will not work on a skeptic. Again, you will only become a source of amusement. If, however, you keep coming up with alternatives, you will engage the skeptic and though he might think your wrong he will respect you.

Eighth: Wit is often very important to an argument with skeptics. Don't mistake wit as disrespect. True they might be toying with you but that will quickly change if you present solid alternatives to what they believe. Then it will be your turn to use wit (not name calling or ad hominem).

Ninth: be aware of logical fallacies and the lamentably many ways people fool themselves into believing things that aren't true, like confabulation, selective thinking, the Forer Effect, confirmation bias, and so on. Most thoughtful skeptics have thought a lot about thinking and how it can go wrong, and will quickly spot such errors.

Skeptics do often have a certain amount of smugness since just about every modern amenity we enjoy as a society was born from their system of thought and investigation. I think the religionists are well advised to just concede this fact. I have watched so many make complete fools of themselves trying to argue otherwise. Religionists can rest knowing the foundation of modernity was created by the Sumerian, that while pagan and not masonic, were still religious. Does this prove anything? I think not. In this respect there appears to be a draw.

Scott

 

[karrie]

It's like arguing about the existence of purple to someone who is color blind frankly. I don't get why so many go on and on and round and round about it. Skeptics will ask and demand more than the simple 'because I see purple' explanation. It's impossible to give Scott, thus the whole thing is, frankly, just plain dumb.

I see very few discussions on here, and many stupid generalizations. Like the implication that your brain works differently or questions more than mine does. No, it doesn't really. I question a lot, I disagree with most religions in the world. But no matter how much research, how much questioning, damn it, I still see purple! :lol:

Oh, and while I get most of your points, don't tell me skeptics 'know there's no rush'. Read a few of mrgrumpy's posts, "Hey religionists, where are you? Where are your answers? Defend yourselves darn you!", and you'll see that labeling 'skeptics' with blanket statements is as silly as labeling 'religionists' with them.

 

[Scott Free]

It's like arguing about the existence of purple to someone who is color blind frankly. I don't get why so many go on and on and round and round about it. Skeptics will ask and demand more than the simple 'because I see purple' explanation. It's impossible to give Scott, thus the whole thing is, frankly, just plain dumb.

Not true. We know what colours animals see by examining their rods, cones and through experimentation. If you really see purple and can't explain it and it can't be demonstrated then you don't really see it. You just think you do.

According to a study done by Norbert Schwarz, social psychologist at the university of Michigan, people are wired to believe the way they do. We have hard wired ways of thinking false things are true. For example; the more we repeat things (like prayer) the more likely we are to think they are true because our brains tend to think what it can access easily is true. You should read it. He can be found in the journal Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

I see very few discussions on here, and many stupid generalizations. Like the implication that your brain works differently or questions more than mine does. No, it doesn't really. I question a lot, I disagree with most religions in the world. But no matter how much research, how much questioning, damn it, I still see purple! :lol:

Not true. I would direct your attention to the March 2008 issue of Scientific America page 36, Adam's Maxim and Spinoza's Conjectures, Belief, disbelief and uncertainty generate different neural pathways in the brain by Michael Shermer.

Oh, and while I get most of your points, don't tell me skeptics 'know there's no rush'. Read a few of mrgrumpy's posts, "Hey religionists, where are you? Where are your answers? Defend yourselves darn you!", and you'll see that labeling 'skeptics' with blanket statements is as silly as labeling 'religionists' with them.

Someone who is against religion is not necessarily a skeptic. The quest for truth is a life long endeavour and the all final answers will not be found in anyone's lifetime. All we can hope for is to add ourselves to the discussion.

As for mrgrumpy's posts: I suppose he wants someone to defend against his suppositions. If no one is able or won't then he wins. Simple.

I apologize since the confusion seems to have been caused by my not putting sources in my argument. You have all but one. The list for number six comes from Plato.

 

[MHz]

It's like arguing about the existence of purple to someone who is color blind frankly.

I would guess the solution to that would be to argue until you are purple in the face, that would give the the actual shade of color and the emotion impact that can go with some colors. Like doing a bathroom in a shade of green so people don't 'get too cozy' and stay in there forever (or what would pass as forever) if someone else is wanting to use that same room.

 

[gerryh]

All your "sources" that you have quoted....you were there and participated in his "supposed" research? You actually SAW what they "allege"?

 

[Scott Free]

All your "sources" that you have quoted....you were there and participated in his "supposed" research? You actually SAW what they "allege"?

I'm not sure what your asking?

Perhaps you don't understand the purpose of the written language? It is a means of communicating and recording events, ideas and stories in a way they can be transmitted through the community and through time (preserved).

Perhaps you don't understand academia? We have educated people that must adhere to certain standards or face consequences. The sources I quoted (except for Plato who was a philosopher, he made the argument, others proved it) use the scientific method and are subject to peer review. I have every reason to be confident in their research because I have confidence in the system by which it was carried out and reviewed. If it isn't true then it will be demonstrated that it isn't. If it is untrue because of fraud then the academics who committed the fraud will lose their jobs.

Perhaps you think I need to be looking over their shoulders to know what they are saying is true? Luckily I really don't. The above explanation is one aspect of the reason and the second is that they are eminently more qualified then I am. So even if I were watching over their shoulders it wouldn't have made a difference. What is important is that similarly qualified people were looking over their shoulders and are reviewing their work. What I need is their conclusions which I can accept as the best evidence. If it turns out it isn't then I will change my view.

 

[gerryh]

What you are doing Scott...is giving your acadamia more credence than mine.... why is that? Because you have more FAITH in the truth of what THEY say over what mine say?

 

[Scott Free]

What you are doing Scott...is giving your acadamia more credence than mine.... why is that? Because you have more FAITH in the truth of what THEY say over what mine say?

Actually I have much more confidence in them because they adhere to strict processes, must prove their arguments and must stand up to peer review. That process has been proven again and again to be the best for discovering truth.

Whereas you have no standards, don't make coherent arguments, and can say anything regardless of its truthfulness because your actions carry no consequence.

I'm not trying to be insulting but this is the straight answer to your question.

There is no "faith" involved in any of it, only confidence in a proven system, and more caution toward yours.

 

[MHz]

Those are some good points Scott and those points would seem to be able to be applied to many topics, not just the 'difficulties' that come up between skeptics and believers.
Even the differences in belief in which doctrine is the more accurate between two believers can be just as demanding, maybe even more so. Since Scripture is so complex, at least at the beginning, a person has to admit to yourself that sometimes to go further forward you have to backup a bit first and take a slightly different path (a change in understanding just what has been said). Nor does it come in big chunks, often a small increase or change in understanding is based on a bunch of tiny pieces of info (often not even seen as being related to each other at first).

At least with a skeptic there is some ground that can be used as a starting point. With somebody new it would only seem fair to them to give some info on all the various doctrines no matter which one you believe to be the more accurate one.

I sometimes wonder how an author who write books about the Bible and then sells them would handle coming across something that changed what was already in print. Would they write a new version and sell that, or give it away, offer a refund on the previous version? Or would they be more likely just keep quiet and stick to the original theory, at least publicly, knowing full well it's wrong.

 

[Scott Free]

Those are some good points Scott and those points would seem to be able to be applied to many topics, not just the 'difficulties' that come up between skeptics and believers.
Even the differences in belief in which doctrine is the more accurate between two believers can be just as demanding, maybe even more so.

It is very interesting watching two people argue theology. I have even participated in such arguments having once been a religionist. I used it as an example because it is the one time you will see religionists adhere to standards in their arguments and use some very strict principles. It seems though, when the argument is broadened, most forget all that and cling to faith based arguments. I'm not sure why that is since religionists are capable of offering good arguments in pretty much the skeptic tradition. I know in my case I didn't simply because I wasn't capable of it. I knew my doctrine so well and little else.

Since Scripture is so complex, at least at the beginning, a person has to admit to yourself that sometimes to go further forward you have to backup a bit first and take a slightly different path (a change in understanding just what has been said). Nor does it come in big chunks, often a small increase or change in understanding is based on a bunch of tiny pieces of info (often not even seen as being related to each other at first).

Well that's it isn't it. We are humans and fallible. The most we can hope for is small steps. Sometimes they lead to the truth sometimes the whole staircase just falls apart. We can never have "faith" in stairs but only confidence that they can hold some weight. If they don't we have to find a different set of stairs or start building new ones while being ever wary they might not lead where we think and they could all fall down the minute someone yells eureka!

I sometimes wonder how an author who write books about the Bible and then sells them would handle coming across something that changed what was already in print. Would they write a new version and sell that, or give it away, offer a refund on the previous version? Or would they be more likely just keep quiet and stick to the original theory, at least publicly, knowing full well it's wrong.

If he was sincere he would probably write a new book exposing his errors but, unfortunately, that wouldn't help the millions of readers that didn't read the new one or clung to it with faith.

 

[Nuggler]

:angry3:Send me money and I'll tell you everything you want to know about religion but were afraid to ask.

I'll prove it too.

But,,,,,,,,,,it'll cost ya.

How much?, you ask...................

Well, how much is snake oil goin for this season?

Double that and add a bit and send it in.

And a prayer too.

Don't forget the prayer. $3.98 each or 2 for 10.00.

They don't cost as much as the "whole truth" about Jesus and God and all, but still gonna cost ya.

And if the guy next door doesn't believe, truly believe, in your particular brand of horsesh!t, just have some Christian feeling and shoot the bastard, or burn him at the stake. Stakes are cheaper than bullets. We can provide both........................for a fee.

So, keep them cards and letters (and money) comin in, brethern and cistern. Keep the faith.

If you can't trust me, who can you trust8O?

Signed: Moe of Nazareth.:cyclopsani:

 

[MHz]

Using your example of stairs and attempting to apply that to Scripture I would have to go with that the steps are there but each would seem to be quite unique from any other. You get a starting point and a ending point off in the distance. If something can be confusing and interesting at the same time that comes when doing the 'assembly', rather than making a beeline for the finish point, there are various turns, changes in pitch, almost any factor that would make the assembly as difficult as possible. Another factor is you don't even have a good understanding of how many steps there are, at first anyway. You can even fit 90% together and it at least gets you to the end point, but what about the other 10%, are they supposed to be in there someplace (which is the most logical conclusion) or are they just left out and put in a pile called trivial or not all that important. Structurally speaking, if there are steps they just might be a key support that a lot of other steps need in order to hold the full weight the stairs are meant to carry. Others are there to test the strength, they are more than allowed to stress the stability as much as possible, tippy toes is just being kind and it is not really a test of strength. So they fall down a few times, they never fall completely apart, the really strong parts fall as a unit. When rebuilding, those solid units make the reassembly go faster. That seems to be my process anyway, build, have others break what can be broken, rebuild (hopefully with more of the available steps than before), get it tested, start putting it together again after it breaks. Sooner or later you have a staircase that has used up all the available steps. That doesn't mean you are finished though. Scripture seems to be written so that it carries it's own verification method, more verses would be the two handrails (fine details that go with the basic step). Again each having it own uniqueness so that it fits only one step.

I couldn't even say at what stage I'm at, I seem to have a set of stairs and some handrails in place and it has been broken down a few times but I certainly don't mind it being jumped on as hard as somebody can, secretly keeping my fingers crossed that it holds of course. It may turn out that it doesn't even need to be jumped on, somebody may just point to a step I didn't see laying around so I get to say "Damn." and start the disassembly myself under the assumption that 1 step is going to be easier to find a place for than 10 steps would be.

Oh my, I really am a windbag. LOL

 

[MHz]

:angry3:Send me money and I'll tell you everything you want to know about religion but were afraid to ask.

I'll prove it too.

But,,,,,,,,,,it'll cost ya.

How much?, you ask...................

Well, how much is snake oil goin for this season?

Double that and add a bit and send it in.

And a prayer too.

Don't forget the prayer. $3.98 each or 2 for 10.00.

They don't cost as much as the "whole truth" about Jesus and God and all, but still gonna cost ya.

And if the guy next door doesn't believe, truly believe, in your particular brand of horsesh!t, just have some Christian feeling and shoot the bastard, or burn him at the stake. Stakes are cheaper than bullets. We can provide both........................for a fee.

So, keep them cards and letters (and money) comin in, brethern and cistern. Keep the faith.

If you can't trust me, who can you trust8O?

Signed: Moe of Nazareth.:cyclopsani:

And if I get asked why I'm late do I get to point at you? I'm pretty sure we are only allowed to wing 'em, that is soo much easier to explain than the him being dead thing is.

 

[Scott Free]

Using your example of stairs and attempting to apply that to Scripture I would have to go with that the steps are there but each would seem to be quite unique from any other. You get a starting point and a ending point off in the distance. If something can be confusing and interesting at the same time that comes when doing the 'assembly', rather than making a beeline for the finish point, there are various turns, changes in pitch, almost any factor that would make the assembly as difficult as possible. Another factor is you don't even have a good understanding of how many steps there are, at first anyway. You can even fit 90% together and it at least gets you to the end point, but what about the other 10%, are they supposed to be in there someplace (which is the most logical conclusion) or are they just left out and put in a pile called trivial or not all that important.

There is a laboratory in my home town that has an entire room dedicated to experiments that didn't work. Now what that means is that the results differed from the predicted results. The papers are bundled up and tucked away and talked about little lest they should cause someone embarrassment. The results are forgotten about and new experiments concocted that should give the desired result. This was the first time I ever ran into what Max Weber called the cause-and-effect reasoning of science "the rationalization process." It isn't so much concerned with discovery as we might think. I believe this is where you will find your missing steps and most probably a whole bunch of forgotten ones.

There really are a lot of good arguments against skepticism and science. It is unfortunate the religionists can't put down their "holy" books long enough to find them. I so love a good argument. Perhaps I should start a thread and take the affirmative for god?

I couldn't even say at what stage I'm at, I seem to have a set of stairs and some handrails in place and it has been broken down a few times but I certainly don't mind it being jumped on as hard as somebody can, secretly keeping my fingers crossed that it holds of course.

I'm pretty shaky myself. I'm still measuring the lumber and looking for a saw. I haven't even had a chance to figure out which direction I want my stairs to go... not that that is really my decision but I like to pretend.

It may turn out that it doesn't even need to be jumped on, somebody may just point to a step I didn't see laying around so I get to say "Damn." and start the disassembly myself under the assumption that 1 step is going to be easier to find a place for than 10 steps would be.

Yeah, I hear you, I think we both must really like building stairs. How much easier it would be if I could embrace Gerd Gigerenzer's "Law Of Indispensable Ignorance?" That is where rational people can chose ignorance over knowledge in case it might upset their apple cart - but really, what fun is there in that?

Oh my, I really am a windbag. LOL

I don't even want to know what that might make me 8O

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I don't get why so many go on and on and round and round about it.

Well, it's all perfectly simple, an idea that I think deserves its own acronym: IAPS. First, many people (like me, for instance) just enjoy the process. Discussion and argument are challenging , interesting, and fun, for such people, and you're unlikely to have a challenging, interesting, fun, exchange with somebody who completely agrees with you. That rapidly turns into, "Yep, you're right," and "Gawd, we're brilliant," which is instantly boring to anybody observing such an exchange, and soon becomes boring to the participants as well.

Second, many people perceive others to be wrong about something and feel moved to challenge them. The theist-atheist divide is just one of the more obvious places where that'll happen. There are multiple world views around--about 6 billion I'd guess--and all our perceptions are filtered through whatever one we happen to have. I'm sure we'd all agree in principle that some are better than others, but sorting them out is pretty difficult. Most people here would probably agree that suicide bombers are incomprehensible and repugnant, for instance, but there is a widely shared theistically-based world view that holds such behaviour to be laudable and heroic. I can't see how any amount of skeptical thinking or critical analysis could find any common ground between that world view and mine, but if someone with such a view showed up here, I'd feel compelled to challenge it.

And third, sometimes people are provably wrong, and some of us feel compelled to try to correct them. It doesn't often work very well, and in fact skeptics are usually much more amenable to persuasion than the faithful if you understand how their minds work. That was the OP's major point, as I understood it. Clear-thinking skeptics know they might be wrong and will listen seriously to well-formed counter arguments, the faithful will rarely concede such a possibility.

And Scott, if I may presume upon your good nature, I'd like to add a ninth point to your OP.

Ninth: be aware of logical fallacies and the lamentably many ways people fool themselves into believing things that aren't true, like confabulation, selective thinking, the Forer Effect, confirmation bias, and so on. Most thoughtful skeptics have thought a lot about thinking and how it can go wrong, and will quickly spot such errors.

 

[Scott Free]

Ninth: be aware of logical fallacies and the lamentably many ways people fool themselves into believing things that aren't true, like confabulation, selective thinking, the Forer Effect, confirmation bias, and so on. Most thoughtful skeptics have thought a lot about thinking and how it can go wrong, and will quickly spot such errors.

Good point. Thank you.

I thought I wasn't very well versed in logical fallacies but actually I am from my research into writing.

 

[mrgrumpy]

Quoting Scott;


Someone who is against religion is not necessarily a skeptic. The quest for truth is a life long endeavour and the all final answers will not be found in anyone's lifetime. All we can hope for is to add ourselves to the discussion.

As for mrgrumpy's posts: I suppose he wants someone to defend against his suppositions. If no one is able or won't then he wins. Simple.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Well, interesting thread Scott; as a former religionist I see that you have some insights dealing with sceptics. I don't consider myself a sceptic. I'm an atheist pure and simple.

And it's not just that I don't believe in a God, I contend that those who do are responsible for untold misery, suffering and willful ignorance, through the support of their churches and so called theologies. I've tossed out a few examples - if "God" can demonstratably be shown to be a child killer, does it comes as any surprise that his clerical followers abused children at native schools? - but alas, all our religionists run and hide under the bed when such challenges are thrown out!

Looking at, and being a amateur student of history, I say that humankind has suffered immensely from this childish need to believe in a supreme being who will console your wretched ass in times of stress!! The fairy tale beliefs in an everlasting life in heaven with whipped cream on top is frankly unworthy of man.

But our religionists on this thread clearly aren't up to the challenges, so yes I do consider my arguments have won. But even that isn't really my intention - for the many , or at least I assume a few folks have read these posts and gone away thinking about them - for THOSE PEOPLE I hope will take any relgious views thay may have and leave them were they belong - on the trash heap of history.

I have had some personal emails from some posters on this thread congratulating me on the things I said, and one at least admonishing me for my brashness. I have no apologies at all - it hasn't exactly improved the arguments put forward by the other side, but I'm pretty sure it got a few people's attention.

Religionists have pretty much had their way in society for 2,000 years; now it's time the world heard from the atheists and their points of view.

 

[MHz]

grumpy, be kind to yourself, it doesn't help you to call yourself 'simple', 'spiritually challenged' is a much gentler term.
Lets call a spade a spade, when you say "untold misery, suffering" you actually mean "your untold misery, suffering"

Didn't we touch on atheists yesterday a bit, those nasty Germans from WWII had latched onto the teachings of one such atheist. There is no shortage of them holding various positions of power these days either, no matter what they call themselves they are without God or conscience.

 

[mrgrumpy]

Actually dear I've had a very nice, priveleged life!

Seeing as you are a tad hung up on the Nazi's what percentage of them came from good, pious Christian families and went to either Lutheran or Catholic schools and/or catechism clases? Somewhere around 90% would be my estimate.

You seem to have a short attention span. I asked you what verses of the bible your Jesus has written and how you know that an illiterate carpenter did so.Still waiting!

 

[MHz]

Guess that just goes to show 'success in no guarantee of being happy'.

Actually my Grandfather came from there in 1900, he was wise enough to see what **** was coming down.

I have no idea of the ratio, didn't your Church brag to you about those kinds of numbers when they were kicking you down the isle?

They should have read you a few verses, Jesus read from Scripture on more than one occasion, so you are either ignorant of that fact or you kept their habit of lying your face off at every opportunity you can find