-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
On a recent show of Soul to Soul, Oprah interviewed Diana Nyad, the long distance swimmer who, at age 64, swam from Havana to Key West. During the interview Oprah mentions that Nyad told the producers that she (Nyad) is “not a God person.” Nyad responds: “I’m an atheist.” Oprah responds incredulously: “But you’re in the awe.” Oprah just can’t believe that an atheist could feel awe. While atheists often use reason to understand reality, they have the same emotions exhibited by non-atheists. Atheists just don’t feel the need to affix the “God” label to their feelings.
Nyad saw no contradiction between her atheism and her ability to experience awe, or as she calls it: “weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity.” Oprah was having none of this when she said “I don’t call you an atheist then. I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery, then that is what God is.”
Nyad, maybe sensing Oprah’s uneasiness, offered a concession to the faithful by saying that her “definition of God is humanity and the love of humanity.” That an atheist would make a theist uneasy indicates the theist’s lack of confidence in their worldview. The comfort of theists is not a primary concern for those who advocate reason.
Nyad also went on to explain she’s a “spiritual” person and believes in souls that live on after death. While atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is simply not believing in any god, most atheists don’t accept the other beliefs that accompany God belief. For all the reasons that belief in God unreasonable, belief in the soul is also unreasonable. Nyad’s beliefs freely crisscross the atheist-theist divide.
Oprah’s prejudice against atheists reinforces negative stereotypes. Her viewers will see Oprah’s prejudice as a trait to be imitated and the cancer will spread. For her viewers who already hold anti-atheists biases, those biases have been validated.
Many Christians have characterized Oprah’s beliefs as a form of pantheism, where the universe, or nature, is identical with divinity. While Oprah calls herself a Christian, pantheism is generally not accepted as part of Christian theology. Oprah’s promotion of Eckhart Tolle and his books has done nothing to ingratiate her with Christians.
Overt displays of bigotry against non-believers are tolerated if not encouraged by our society. Studies show that atheists are among the least liked people. This dislike keeps many atheists in the closet. The anonymity of the internet allows atheists to come out on-line while maintaining their disguise at other times. On the internet, people can learn counter-arguments to theological claims and use their own mind to decide which is more compelling.
H/T: Dave Niose, JT Eberhard, Jerry Coyne, Mano Singham, Hemant Mehta, David Edwards.
Mike Spindell 1, October 20, 2013 at 11:43 am
…
Due to the need to dominate by certain Western and Eastern cultures, part of the process of justifying their brutality was to make these native people “simple” and “primitive” as part of the de-humanization process that then gave them the “moral rectitude” to brutalize them.
…
========================
Interesting that a noted American journalist/historian picked up on that:
(As We Go Marching, by John T. Flynn, 1944, page 222).
Along w/ some cinnamon and raisins.
There was a car baked into the loaf of bread.
Bill H.,
My wife gave up on Oprah when she she gave a loaf of bread to every member of the audience and they acted like it was a car.
“The People are not in control and it would be dis-harmonious to seek such control.” (Oro Lee)
Definitely at odds with Genesis 1:26:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Dominion versus equality or egalitarianism? 😉
Oro,
I am not arguing the point. I am not an atheist as I have experienced far too many “magical thinking” (as Tony C likes to call them) events in my life to deny the naturalness of the unexplained. I am interested in the development of explanations within other cultures. I spent months with the Lakota Sioux, Oglala and Rosebud Bands, and took with me, when I left, a “centered contentment”. (Definitely not what happened after time with the Navajo!)
And what RTC said.
I consider Oprah to be the biggest blight on our culture since Cotton Mather. She’s brought a culture where everybody feels entitled to discuss their own little personal problems as if they are THE most important thing in the world. And she’s created a culture of victimhood, where any celebrity must claim to have suffered some kind of abuse in order to seem more authentic in the eyes of the public.
And everything’s about Oprah; every tragedy, every celebration, every stinking event, from the last 2007 tsunami to Sidney Poitiers lifetime achievement award all come down to what it means for Big O and how it affected her.
“Tissue!”
Yes, it is so unreasonable to rely on evidence and reason instead of faith. 🙄
The issue isn’t one’s personal choice. The bottom line legally and ethically speaking is that the choice to follow a particular religion or none at all is an individual choice; an inherent inalienable right. The unreasonableness comes from those who insist upon foisting their religion (or lack thereof) upon others either through the mechanisms of law or even socially. The problems arise when someone wants to make that choice for others. And just like any group of people, yes, some atheists are zealous fanatics every bit as bad as any Christian or Muslim.
If you don’t like atheism? Don’t be an atheist. It’s your choice. Problem solved.
If you don’t like Religion X? Don’t be one. It’s your choice. Problem solved.
I wonder if Oprah and Harpo think that our President is an Atheist. He does have a dog. That is a good sign.
I do not think that Oprah or Harpo have a bias against Athiests or however ya spull it. Harpo got into Heaven and came back. When he did he reversed his name. I don’t know who he is or where he is but he is back. Not as a dog so he can not recall his prior life. But there is a guy on TV named Cruz who honks a horn a lot and says nothing. He was leaning against the economy wall and when he let off it fell down. He doesn’t talk Texas talk like Rick Perry so he has a chance at being President. He is sort of third party like but he is not an Atheist. He is not an obstetrician so he has a chance. If he were an obthamologist he would see better. The world is flat, the Earth is round. Two things. No religion required to figure that one out.
[music]
My boomerang wont come back!
My boomerang wont come back.
Biggest disgrace to the aborigine race…
My boomerang wont come back.
–Word Press 2013
David: but you’re a Christian theocrat, right?
RTC wrote: “but you’re a Christian theocrat, right?”
No, I have said many times that I am not a Christian, and I do not favor theocracy. My perspective on government is Jeffersonian… a government that does not show respect toward any particular establishment of religion, but also one that acknowledges God and is friendly toward theism.
Hubert Cumberdale 1, October 20, 2013 at 10:46 am
It is curious that any form of discussion about atheism, particularly by someone who doesn’t believe the same thing an atheist believes, is simply a bias against atheism. This is very similar to criticism about Mr. Obama always being labeled racism. The truth is, not everyone believes the same way atheists believe …
===========================
This thread seems to indicate that there are differing beliefs among atheists.
They are not homogenized are they?
Hubert Cumberdale said it best. I might add the following:
Why is Oprah’s theism labeled as a bias and as a cancer that will spread, but the atheists on this blog who chastise her are not biased? What makes Oprah a bigot in the mind of the atheist, but somehow they are exempt from bigotry in the way they castigate her?
James Knauer 1, October 20, 2013 at 11:10 am
No amount of belief can ever convert a lie into truth.
========================
Well said.
No amount of belief can ever convert a lie into truth.
This is an absolute!
nick spinelli 1, October 20, 2013 at 10:58 am
Dredd, The Chessman were reportedly a street gang in Brooklyn that MikeS was a member. He was a wheel man. He can tell you more. I think they rumbled w/ the Van Buren Boys but MikeS can answer all your questions. He wrote about it on the SNAP thread. It was an opportune anecdote in response to Michael, trying to show a man who is of the street that he too had “street cred.” It was the first time MikeS ever mentioned the Chessman during my tenure. I wonder if the NYC cops still have a book on that notorious gang.
======================
Thanks.
I had not followed the SNAP thread that deeply.
nick spinelli 1, October 20, 2013 at 10:46 am
You suggested:
———–
ok, here it is:
It was a question that ended with a question mark, not an exclamation mark!
It was posited in a hypothetical frame.
Like: “what if Hitchens was not ok with W spying on him, but was ok with W going on a murderous rampage of torture and mass murder based on a lie?”
Can you explain his logic for going gaga for the killing, maiming, destroying, and torturing based on a lie … but also going gaga when his constitutional rights are violated by spying on him without a warrant or cause?
Both were wrong, not just the W barbarianism, the W voyeurism was also wrong, but Hitchens was only incensed over the W voyeurism.
Perhaps he was skittish about being seen naked by the W gang bangers?
——————–
I am just saying that there is a logical contradiction, not that I “despise” Hitchens.
That was your ball bursting bank shot bro.
Oro Lee: Whether religion could do good (even organized religion) depends to some extent on the definitions of “religion” and “organized,” and both of those legitimately (in my mind) exist on a spectrum, so it is possible, when reasoning, and even with one’s self, to make a series of “false equivalence” points that end up making no sense at all.
Is telling a child a fiction a “religion?” If a man tells his daughter at three that Santa is coming to town, and she truly believes in Santa as a physical, magical person, is that “religion”?
How about a parable? Kenny Rogers song “The Gambler” is a parable. If a man tells his son this story in song, and the son believes his father really met such a man, that the Gambler was real, is that “religion”?
Organization is a spectrum as well. Is it an organization if nobody is in charge, but most of the community has a rule and gets angry or even violent with those that refuse to abide by that rule? So regardless of whether the rule amounts to religion, are we “organized” against farting on somebody’s meal while walking through a packed dining room of a restaurant?
We accept and understand adjectives on “organized,” things can be well organized, or poorly organized, or hierarchically organized. With a little training or explanation we accept other forms of “organization,” like peer-to-peer networks, or the “checks and balances” of the founders, or randomized ad-hoc-qualified committee: The way we select juries to make life and death decisions about the fate of defendants.
So back to any evolutionary purpose of religion. I do not believe we humans are evolved to have faith in the supernatural. I can’t prove it, but I do not think atheists and agnostics are mutant humans missing some gene that produces some neural structure (and if they are, perhaps that is a beneficial mutation, not a detrimental one).
To the extent that neuro-imaging can identify some physical correlate of a mental state which the subjects describe as religious awe or being in the presence of God, I do not think that state is any proof at all of a biological, genetic source of religion. I’d bet my own emotional transports upon finding a long sought solution, or my reactions to some music, singers or acting are quite similar. I just do not attribute my emotions or feelings to anything supernatural. And without studying absolute non-supernaturalists like me (which are much more rare than the Diana Nyad type that waffle on the supernatural), saying such measurable brain states ARE evidence of a biological origin of faith is just not warranted, it is an untestable hypothesis because we have no good way to tell if their subjective feeling is identical to MY subjective feeling.
I think religion itself (as a Meme) has evolved, to both protect itself from criticism and logical refutation, and increase its control over others.
As far as any purpose it originally served, and was invented for, to my knowledge one plausible purpose was simply educational. There are, in multiple languages and cultures, a commonality of a story plot that dates back to at least 3000 BC, called “the solar myth”, that teaches the journey of the sun through the constellations over the course of a year.
The content varies slightly with geography and culture, but suggests it was told, refined, and memorized to help children remember the sequence of constellations which correlated with seasonal variation, and therefore their duties in getting ready for rains, crops, herding, and preparing for winter or summer or harvesting (which are reflected in the nature of the images drawn for some constellations).
The solar myth is a cheat sheet for a natural calendar with certain events marked; including the winter solstice (December 23rd to December 25th) when the sun “dies” and is “reborn”. The stories contained both moral guidance and warnings for dealing with the duplicitous, honoring the helpful, and instructional guidance on when, for example, one allowed sheep to mate or should harvest fish or crops or store food for winter.
The solar myth is also recognizable, with supernatural additions and adaptations, in the story of Jesus (in the role of the sun), with his disciples taking on the mythical personalities of the constellations the sun meets in its annual trek through the stars.
There is a thin line, I think, between parables and fairy tales and fiction that teaches, and it crosses the line for an individual when it stops being fiction and is taken as belief on faith. That line depends upon the relative strengths of rationality and emotionality in the individual (which itself may have a genetic component); but our stories cannot always be tailored to the individual child (or adult). A useful, dramatic and educational story can escape the control of its authors. They may have consciously written a parable about hubris brought down by deception, but never wanted or intended that anybody should rewrite their story to trick others into thinking their gingerbread man was an actual historical figure.
To the extent ‘religion’ consists of non-supernatural life lessons and instructions that prevent mistakes and regrets, it can be a useful educational device and a shortcut to virtualized life experiences. To the extent those life rules are justified by supernatural consequences, it is detrimental. Either they are justifiable because of their real world consequences to individuals or society, or they are arbitrary restrictions that give somebody unfair advantage or power, or cost us time and energy and resources that could be better spent (not necessarily on profit, perhaps on rest, research, socialization or lower priority projects or speculations that may or may not pay off).
Dredd, The Chessman were reportedly a street gang in Brooklyn that MikeS was a member. He was a wheel man. He can tell you more. I think they rumbled w/ the Van Buren Boys but MikeS can answer all your questions. He wrote about it on the SNAP thread. It was an opportune anecdote in response to Michael, trying to show a man who is of the street that he too had “street cred.” It was the first time MikeS ever mentioned the Chessman during my tenure. I wonder if the NYC cops still have a book on that notorious gang.
“It was an opportune anecdote in response to Michael, trying to show a man who is of the street that he too had “street cred.”
Yes it was written in a response to an unwarranted attack by a Dick who claims he knows everyone and everything. In that sense it was immature of me to have responded and for that I apologize not to Nick, but to the blog. Our Dick has been stalking me for a good long time now as he tries to play Alpha at this blog. The problem is he lacks the chops, the credibility and ultimately the honesty to do so. The other problem is that to him life is about dominance and so in his arrival here he has sought to dominate from the first. Foiling his plans has been his intellectual laziness and the fact that because he has somehow associated with some subject, he’s an expert and needs to supply no supporting material for his opinions. As he says he “doesn’t do links”. The example being something like: “My cousin, the expert, told me the truth about this.” In the Nick’s writing he is immune from what most would call facts in responding to him and I would say for the most part that is unintentional. He simply lacks the self-awareness to understand what he is doing because he is trying so hard to be top dog, as if somehow achieving that status is a victory.
He directs his anger here towards what he sees as an “elite” that he feels is stifling this blog. I leave it to you the readers whether there is any factual basis for that. I will point out that except for Gene and I, Nick was obsequious to the other guest bloggers up until the disagreed with some point he was making. Then slowly Elaine and OS caught the focus of his wrath. The other GB’s simply pay no attention to him so he remains obsequious and perhaps their strategy is the one I should adopt, since from the aspect of content Nick really has little.
Just to clear the air about the Chessmen, they were not a gang in the sense that they were part of organized crime, such as we see today. They fought in the street with other gangs of similar type and sometimes with individuals fought with other individuals. That was the way street gangs were back then. That type of a gang had a long history in NYC and I imagine around the country in the 50’s and early 60’s. Occasionally some of these gangs did organize into organized crime, but mostly as people grew and found spouses they fell apart. In the Chessmen’s case their downfall was heroin and a good percentage became junkies. A few died, but most went through rehab and have lived productive lives. Heroin never interested me so I never tried it and also I found a girlfriend, because of that I stopped hanging out. I’ve always found a female’s company far more preferable than “hanging out with the boys”. I would also like to mention that I was 17 when I began to hang out with them and that was after I’d moved to Queens because my mother had died. Some months later my father died and I was left totally on my own. My reaction to being an orphan was as you would expect problematic and somewhat self-destructive. So there you have my “sordid”, unsolicited (by you the reader) tale, make of it what you will and I’m sure Nick will have his share of snide commentary.
“He was a wheel man. He can tell you more. I think they rumbled w/ the Van Buren Boys but MikeS can answer all your questions.”
Interestingly the Chessmen had significant involvement with Martin Van Buren High School, but I’ve never mentioned it. The casual reader of course would have no idea about this, nor would the other GB’s, but since it was my life I do. Now is it possible that our brave private dick has used his talents to snoop in my life as a way to intimidate me…..who knows and finally who cares. All I care to say further is that in my time here I’ve been quite honest about my opinions and about myself. Some would think me too honest, but that is up to them to judge. Finally, I again apologize for wasting anyone’s time with the mewling of an insecure bully, but after awhile his personal vitriol gushed to draw attention to himself, does get bothersome, especially from one who contributes little but self promotion and in his own parlance “ball busting.”