Oprah speaks for atheists rather than listen.

[Johan]

Oprah can bite my shiny metal ass.

[Sal1981]

"religious morality" is an oxymoron.

Carry on.

[PickelledEggs]

Oprah's not a brilliant woman, she's a moron with a lot of book learning.  She's the typical "Christian" who knows almost nothing about the religion she professes to follow, and can't conceive of anyone not being in it or against it.

Not only that, I think she said somewhere that she isn't even christian. She is "spiritual", whatever that is... But either way, it doesn't matter.

Why?:
Because she is of the type that goes. "Oh that's pleasant, I want to believe that" And then proceeds to convince herself that it's truth. The only reason that oprah spewing B.S. from that opening in her face is an issue, is because she has the power of fame. And that's it.

[PJS]

The fact that Oprah is followed and respected by millions is not surprising. What used to surprise me was the significant number of fairly well educated, intelligent folks who take her seriously. Alain de Botton has used her appeal as an example of the ramifications of the lack of serious instruction and discussion in the art of living in universities. His London based "School of Life" is his secular alternative to pop culture sources.

Forgive my deviation from the particular Oprah take cited in the OP (perhaps this merits a separate thread), but de Botton argues:

My own answer to what the humanities are for is simple: They should help us to live. We should look to culture as a storehouse of useful ideas about how to face our most pressing personal and professional issues. Novels and historical narratives can impart moral instruction and edification. Great paintings can suggest the requirements for happiness. Philosophy can probe our anxieties and offer consolation. It should be the job of a university education to tease out the therapeutic and illuminative aspects of culture, so that we emerge from a period of study as slightly less disturbed, selfish and blinkered human beings. Such a transformation benefits not only the economy but also our friends, children and spouses.[/

The vacuum gets filled with Oprah, Dr. Phil et al.

[stromboli]

The fact that Oprah is followed and respected by millions is not surprising. What used to surprise me was the significant number of fairly well educated, intelligent folks who take her seriously. Alain de Botton has used her appeal as an example of the ramifications of the lack of serious instruction and discussion in the art of living in universities. His London based "School of Life" is his secular alternative to pop culture sources.

Forgive my deviation from the particular Oprah take cited in the OP (perhaps this merits a separate thread), but de Botton argues:

My own answer to what the humanities are for is simple: They should help us to live. We should look to culture as a storehouse of useful ideas about how to face our most pressing personal and professional issues. Novels and historical narratives can impart moral instruction and edification. Great paintings can suggest the requirements for happiness. Philosophy can probe our anxieties and offer consolation. It should be the job of a university education to tease out the therapeutic and illuminative aspects of culture, so that we emerge from a period of study as slightly less disturbed, selfish and blinkered human beings. Such a transformation benefits not only the economy but also our friends, children and spouses.[/

The vacuum gets filled with Oprah, Dr. Phil et al.

Ah yes, Dr. Phil, the Forehead From Texas. I agree. These people fill a vacuum of mind that simply accepts what pundits express in the media. "Oprahthink" has sold millions of books on spirituality and other subjects. Being referred to by her literally will make you a bestselling author, even if it is spiritual drivel.

[Brian37]

"religious morality" is an oxymoron.

Carry on.

Hold on now. It is not so much that it is an Oxymoron. Religious people can be moral, it is simply that they mistake religion as being the cause. That mistake allows them to dodge responsibility when some in their ranks are immoral.

You can find good motifs and ideas and metaphors in all holy books and religious traditions and of course in also Taoism and Buddhism.

That is proof that religious people can be moral. But the fatal mistake that causes all the problems is all of them fail to see that they don't need religion because our ability to do good or bad is an evolutionary trait and not the invention of any one religion.

"Atheist" is also not a moral code, it is not a label that will dictate the person holding it will always do good. The only thing it describes is the "off" position.

Ayn Rand was an atheist, but I found her "fuck you I got mine" economic views morally repugnant.

I would still call religion a weapon, but extend that to nationalism or politics which can also be a dogmatic religion. Religion is poison because it is a comic book projection of human existence.

[Sal1981]

"religious morality" is an oxymoron.

Carry on.

Hold on now. It is not so much that it is an Oxymoron. Religious people can be moral, it is simply that they mistake religion as being the cause. That mistake allows them to dodge responsibility when some in their ranks are immoral.

You can find good motifs and ideas and metaphors in all holy books and religious traditions and of course in also Taoism and Buddhism.

That is proof that religious people can be moral. But the fatal mistake that causes all the problems is all of them fail to see that they don't need religion because our ability to do good or bad is an evolutionary trait and not the invention of any one religion.

"Atheist" is also not a moral code, it is not a label that will dictate the person holding it will always do good. The only thing it describes is the "off" position.

Ayn Rand was an atheist, but I found her "fuck you I got mine" economic views morally repugnant.

I would still call religion a weapon, but extend that to nationalism or politics which can also be a dogmatic religion. Religion is poison because it is a comic book projection of human existence.

Religious people are moral in spite of their doctrine.

Everything I find in religion has somewhere down the line a negative say on morality. I don't think I've encountered any religion whose matters concerning morality hasn't been, ideologically, a detriment.

I did, once, think I had found it Jainism, but they go on the other scale where the self comes at a cost at ones environment.

Not saying it's impossible, just that I haven't encountered it, although I'm inclined to think that how religion is structured, by principle, they're unable to have a say on morality - but that chain of thought hasn't really been explored fully.

[Brian37]

Religious people are moral in spite of their doctrine.

Bingo, they just don't realize it.

[the_antithesis]

"Oprah" spelled backwards is "cunt."

[FrankDK]

> Religious people are moral in spite of their doctrine.

That's not borne out by the evidence.

In fact, religious people are much less moral than atheists, based on the prison population in the US.  In some cases (the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Crusades, killing abortion doctors, discriminating against gays, etc.) it's religion that motivates people to immoral conduct.  In other cases, it's the belief that all they need to do is ask for forgiveness, and their sins will be wiped away.

Frank

[Brian37]

> Religious people are moral in spite of their doctrine.

That's not borne out by the evidence.

In fact, religious people are much less moral than atheists, based on the prison population in the US.  In some cases (the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Crusades, killing abortion doctors, discriminating against gays, etc.) it's religion that motivates people to immoral conduct.  In other cases, it's the belief that all they need to do is ask for forgiveness, and their sins will be wiped away.

Frank

Stop it. Seriously, I warn atheists not to pull that moral superiority crap. Morality is an evolutionary issue, not a label issue. If we insist on ignoring our common species condition we will do the very things we accuse theists of. We are still humans first.

I think the more educated a society is and the more economic stability a society has, the less dogmatic they are. But if the world were all suddenly atheists, you would still have divisions.

I don't agree with atheists on all issues, I know Libertarian gun loving atheists, so again, we are still ultimately individuals first.

[FrankDK]

> Stop it. Seriously, I warn atheists not to pull that moral superiority crap.

It has nothing to do with moral superiority, although the religious tend to claim that.  It has to do with the facts.  The facts show that, in the US, at least, theists are about 50 times more likely to commit a crime that winds them up in prison than atheists.  When you can change the facts, let me know.

There is also the fact that religious motivation causes many atrocities, directly and indirectly.  I mentioned a few; there are many more.

> Morality is an evolutionary issue, not a label issue.

Facts have nothing to do with labels.  The belief that you have a connection with a magic giant in the sky who condemns the people you don't like provides motivation to do horrible things to other people.

> If we insist on ignoring our common species condition we will do the very things we accuse theists of. We are still humans first.

I never suggested otherwise.  But to pretend that religion doesn't and hasn't motivated heinous behavior is serious denial.  I know of no instance in which atheism motivated tragedy on such a grand scale.

> I think the more educated a society is and the more economic stability a society has, the less dogmatic they are. But if the world were all suddenly atheists, you would still have divisions.

I never suggested otherwise.  But religion motivates some of the worst behavior in people.

> I don't agree with atheists on all issues, I know Libertarian gun loving atheists, so again, we are still ultimately individuals first.

That has nothing to do with the fact that religion motivates heinous behavior.

Frank

[Plu]

It has nothing to do with moral superiority, although the religious tend to claim that. It has to do with the facts. The facts show that, in the US, at least, theists are about 50 times more likely to commit a crime that winds them up in prison than atheists.

What do the facts say about the general living conditions of theists vs atheists? It's always a bit easy to say "group X is more likely to end up in prison", but unless you make a comparison with all things equal except the members of one set belonging to group X and the other belonging to not group X, it's just bullshitting people with statistics.

(I won't argue with the other points as I happen to agree with those.)

[Brian37]

> Stop it. Seriously, I warn atheists not to pull that moral superiority crap.

It has nothing to do with moral superiority, although the religious tend to claim that.  It has to do with the facts.  The facts show that, in the US, at least, theists are about 50 times more likely to commit a crime that winds them up in prison than atheists.  When you can change the facts, let me know.

There is also the fact that religious motivation causes many atrocities, directly and indirectly.  I mentioned a few; there are many more.

> Morality is an evolutionary issue, not a label issue.

Facts have nothing to do with labels.  The belief that you have a connection with a magic giant in the sky who condemns the people you don't like provides motivation to do horrible things to other people.

> If we insist on ignoring our common species condition we will do the very things we accuse theists of. We are still humans first.

I never suggested otherwise.  But to pretend that religion doesn't and hasn't motivated heinous behavior is serious denial.  I know of no instance in which atheism motivated tragedy on such a grand scale.

> I think the more educated a society is and the more economic stability a society has, the less dogmatic they are. But if the world were all suddenly atheists, you would still have divisions.

I never suggested otherwise.  But religion motivates some of the worst behavior in people.

> I don't agree with atheists on all issues, I know Libertarian gun loving atheists, so again, we are still ultimately individuals first.

That has nothing to do with the fact that religion motivates heinous behavior.

Frank

You are talking to someone who calls religion poison. Religion should be treated as a poison. What am saying however, is that we must never forget that no matter what we are still the same species, with or without religion.

"atheist" is a position, not a moral code.