Is Religion Just Another Big Business?

[idiosyncrasy]

It appears that most religions appear to be making money than giving the spiritual guidance.
Hae you noticed how their leaders get large salaries and live in luxury?
This would appear to be especially true of the TV evangelists, remember the scandal a few years back in the US?

[Khandro]

It is estimated that Richard Dawkins has made £10 million out of being an atheist:
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/authors/richard-dawkins-net-worth/

So some of these religiosos aren't doing very well at all.

[naomi24]

Good for him.

[Atheist]

Khandro; Dawkins has written quite a few best-selling books. In them he tries to explain what science is about, and to encourage people to think for themselves and to seek information and inspiration by looking at the world we live in. He doesn't make claims about his own infallibility.

[Peter Pedant]

poltics of envy
lies all lies
televangelists go bankrupt - PTL - Praise the Lord ( aka Pay the Lady) was one

Pope is God's employee ( I only wrote that to vex you) and doesnt draw a wage or er stipend and lives on site

and who asked?
the R C C may well go bankrupt in America

other than my main point the question is load a crap
I dont think I have much else to add

[Peter Pedant]

Good for him.
AB I love AB - I marvel how some one-liners go totally against any sense at all

keep going, everybardy!

[naomi24]

//Good for him. //

What is it about that^ that you don't understand, PP?

[Khandro]

Atheist //Dawkins has written quite a few best-selling books. In them he tries to explain what science is about,//

A lot of scientists would disagree with that.

[naomi24]

Who are these scientists who would disagree with that, Khandro? How many of his books have you read?

[Khandro]

naomi, 'According to Rice University, of the 137 scientists interviewed from the UK, 48 of them mentioned Richard Dawkins without prompting, and nearly 80 percent of those scientists (38 people) "believed that he misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public engagements" and that he conveys "the wrong impression ...'

That's just one quote, there are lots more.

[Atheist]

Khandro at 14:03
'According to Rice University, of the 137 scientists interviewed from the UK, 48 of them mentioned Richard Dawkins without prompting, and nearly 80 percent of those scientists (38 people) "believed that he misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public engagements" and that he conveys "the wrong impression ...'

Do you know what those scientists were being interviewed about? What is the source for your quotation?

[Atheist]

Ah, I see the Templeton Foundation are lurking in the background.

[pixie374]

//It is estimated that Richard Dawkins has made £10 million out of being an atheist://

Almost Darwinian, isn't it? ;-)

[naomi24]

If you're talking about the study I'm aware of over 1500 British scientists were interviewed. 38? What's that, about 2%? I guess he can cope with that.

How many of his books have you read, Khandro?

[Atheist]

And further down in what appears to be your source...
"A spokesperson for the Centre for Inquiry, which is currently merging with Dawkins' Foundation for Reason & Science, told the Independent that "[...] It’s certainly not a breathtaking revelation that fewer than 40 scientists out of 137—culled from a pool of over 20,000—might not be fans of Professor Dawkins’ particular approach to science communication. Comes with the territory ... It was not so long ago that scientists were decrying the science popularisation of Carl Sagan, and even today there are some who take issue with Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and others.""
And further up
"Elaine Howard Ecklund, the principal investigator for the whole RASIC study, stressed that none of the interviewed scientists questioned Dawkins' integrity as a scientist. “In general, scientists in interviews emphasised promotion of science over the scientist, diplomacy over derision, and dialogue over ideological extremism,” she said."

[Khandro]

" It’s certainly not a breathtaking revelation that fewer than 40 scientists out of 137—culled from a pool of over 20,000—might not be fans of Professor Dawkins’ particular approach to science"

The relevant figure was 40 out of 137. The 20,000 is an absurd irrelevance, a made up figure, you may as well say a pool of million scientists.

His much quoted post at Oxford University was paid for by a computer software millionaire, a position set up solely on the understanding that he was to have to position, he didn't get there on academic merit.

[naomi24]

Khandro, his CV is pretty impressive - which is more than I can say for the effect religion has on you. Doesn’t that vitriol you spew worry you?

[Atheist]

Khandro; have you read any of his books?

[Khandro]

A. Instead of keep asking how much Dawkins have I read (some but not a lot, why would I?) you should be asking along with naomi what have you read since you founded your now outdated views from him decades ago, at the heights of the so-called 'New Atheism'

His 'selfish gene' theory has long been discredited, and as to his views on the origins of life - well really! it's a joke.

Still, he's the only one laughing on his way to the bank.

[Atheist]

Khandro, science doesn't change at the same rate as pseudo-science and so all I have read in the last few years has been New Scientist, Pour la Science, Hawking, and odd books of popular science by various scientists science writers. I don't think I'm old-fashioned or out of touch with current science thinking. I suspect that your dismissal of Dawkins is because you haven't read much of his, but perhaps have read a lot of stuff that opposes him. The reason people attack Hawkins's science is because he opposes their religious views, and they have no way of defending their beliefs other than pretending that rational plodding science isn't better than unsubstantiated assertions, often relying solely on the authority of old writings.
Are you also dismissive of Hawking?

[Atheist]

Khandro, you should be able to summarise Dawkins views on the origins of life in a sentence. From memory I can only suggest that he thinks there is no explanation of the transition from inert matter to matter sufficiently organised to be considered 'life'. He doesn't claim to 'know' how life began, unlike religious people who think that they know.