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?

[Spungle]

Dawkins, a self-made man who worships his creator.

[Atheist]

Spungle. LOL.

[naomi24]

If he worships himself rather than a product of someone else’s imagination, he’s a wise man indeed, spungle.

Khandro, discredited by whom?

[naomi24]

By the way, khandro, this New Atheism you talk about isn’t a club and it isn’t new at all. It just means people are now at liberty to voice opinions that were once suppressed. Religion no longer rules lives in this country and the ludicrous concept of blasphemy is no longer a crime. You have to be happy with that. No?

[Khandro]

naomi: //Khandro, discredited by whom?//

'Note: The literature discrediting the “selfish gene” approach to evolution is extensive. The following is a sampling of some of the clearest expositions from recognized leaders in the field of evolutionary biology: Gould, S. J. (1982). “Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory.” Science, 216(4544:April 23), 380-387; Depew, D. J., & Weber, B. H. (1996). Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; Wilson, D. S., & Wilson, E. O. (2007). “Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology.” The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(4: December 2007), 327-348; Goodwin, B. (2001). How the Leopard changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity. Princeton: Princeton University Press; Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2007). “Precis of Evolution in Four Dimensions.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(4), 353-392. Winther, R. G. (2008). "Systemic Darwinism". PNAS, 105(33: August 19, 2008), 11833-11838; Pigliucci, M. (2007). “Do We Need an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis?” Evolution, 61(12: December 2007), 2743-2749.'

I don't claim to have read all these books, but I know a man (of whom I trust) who has, and I can paraphrase the thrust of many of their arguments to AB bite-size if required. ​

[naomi24]

Khandro, recognisable names there, some controversial, but if these people are genuinely able to ‘discredit’ another’s work there should be no ‘argument’ - but there is. The fact is they don’t know the secrets of life any more than anyone else. They’re offering theories too. Where did you copy and paste that from by the way?

You’ve succeeded in diverting this thread from what is probably for you an uncomfortable OP so let’s get back to religion. Do you think the abolition of blasphemy laws is a good thing?

[ToraToraTora]

yes, morons follow ***.

[tomus42]

TV evangelists and those that give money to them are ridiculous.

It's a tax on stupidity.

[Khandro]

n . I watched last night (Thurs) a video on Netflix about trying to save people from dying of drug overdosing in Huntington West Virginia. It's called, Heroin(e) - worth a watch anyway, - some amazing women in there.
If you were to watch it, can you explain where you think the 'selfish gene', as a fundamental & sole principle of evolution applies.

[Atheist]

Khandro; I don't think you have a clue about evolution or the 'selfish gene'. Stick to your own game, don't try to get involved with science.

[naomi24]

I won’t be watching it, Khandro, and even if I did I am happy to say that I am as qualified to criticise the science as you are. In other words not at all. Your criticism of Dawkins isn’t about science, it’s about his unswerving ability to dismantle the nonsense that religion promotes and that scares you - and if you were honest you would admit it.

[naomi24]

Cross posted, atheist.

[Khandro]

Heroin(e) isn't about science, it's about humanity.

[naomi24]

//can you explain where you think the 'selfish gene', as a fundamental & sole principle of evolution applies. //

If it isn't about science why ask that^ question, Khandro?

[Peter Pedant]

// I can paraphrase the thrust of many of their arguments to AB bite-size if required. ​//
absolutely necessary and even THAT may defeat learning on AB

three word sentences
( like above)
no longies like "polysyllabic"

clarifications allowed which say the exact opposite of previously stated - - and you're away! it'll look like any other AB post

less seriously - Ay have read a lot of Steven J Gould:
He wrote a very well received page in National Geographic for - - 25 to 50 y - and a lorra books - Panda's Thumb e.g.
[Panda lost its thumb - bears dont have opposable (*) thumbs and so to grasp bamboo they have to develp a bony outgrowth rather than evolve backwards]

Gould thought his modification of Darwin was so radical he truly thought it should be the Gould-Niles theory. ( punctuated evolution)
Yeah Niles the soup Nazi

[ a thousand ABers scream wot dat den etc]

longer and more interesting than just writing - - "sez foo!"

[Peter Pedant]

big fing that the proles seem to have missed
as they ask their spiky and relevant qq

is where does evolution operate ? at genetic or whole animal level?

[goodlife]

In view of all that the Scriptures show Christ will accomplish at his return, the establishment of his kingdom, the rewarding of his followers, the separating of the sheep and goats and the destruction of the wicked, the question of his coming back is certainly not just an academic one.

No,those who so hold show that they either do not believe the Scriptures or are blind to their import—in either case being blind guides who can but lead their blind followers to the ditch of destruction.—Matt. 15:14.

[Khandro]

'While the idea of the “selfish gene” still holds currency in the popular imagination, [i.e. in that of ABs pseudo-scientists] it has been extensively discredited as a simplistic interpretation of evolution.

In its place, theorists offer a view of evolution as a series of complex, interlocking systems, where the gene, organism, community, species and environment all interact with each other in a variety of ways over different time frames. And regarding our intrinsic human nature, a new generation of scientists has pointed to our ability to cooperate, rather than compete, as our defining characteristic.'

[naomi24]

Where are you copying this stuff from, Khandro, and why aren't you posting links to sources?

[Atheist]

Khandro's cut and paste is discussed here-

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2017/08/07/predictably-salon-publishes-a-new-dawkins-hit-piece-and-its-as-dreadful-as-youd-expect/

K; it depends where you look. If you dislike Dawkins, you find stuff that supports your view. Dawkins has made clear that 'selfish gene' has nothing to do with selfish individuals.