dimreepr

It's intersesting to note how often this is used to provide an escape clause, from this inquiry.

And all I'm saying is, oppresion is subjective and most people, oppressed or otherwise have enough to eat day to day, and decent shelter can be a cave if it's cold and raining. I'm not saying they should be content because of what's to come, I'm saying they can be content because of what's come before (religion in this case), as the sermon on the mount is trying to teach, heaven is here and now and hell is never finding that out. Catch 22 is a joke!!! "me, happy happy happy, dead: you, worry worry worry, dead" Yes it does, it's just that polititions catch up much faster than priest's and we tend to ignore the lesson's of history...

That tends to happen when we don't have enough to eat (feeding of the 5 thousand springs to mind), the political/philosophy pendulum swings in an equal and opposite way...

Indeed, even the oppressed.

How do you know the oppresed aren't content? We all have a boss even the POTUS; it's perfectly possible to be content with a boss/oppressor (god and sundry others) (especially the kind one's) that let's you have enough to eat, and share with your family and friends, a roof over our head's and the time to appreciate what we have, that, often, the boss doesn't; because the boss struggled so hard to protect their privilege that they forget the pleasures of sharing. Ying Yang... Turning the other cheek has nothing to do with war, defend yourself first, otherwise you won't have a cheek to turn; turning the other cheek comes after the war... You make more friends with missionaries, when the missiles are no longer needed... Really??? I'm all ears...

Carefully...

In any given society you will find, the privileged and the, so called, oppressed (your words); when they're in balance the Lord builds a folly, so the oppresed can work for their bread and be satisfied with it's effort to provide for itself, and the Lord gets to keep its privilege; it's a ying yang/good v evil kind of thing, as explored in many a religious philosophy... WTF are you talking about? Did Putin blame religion for his invasion? Or was it him that keeps negging me?

Indeed, I was a little flippant (didn't really have time to post); I haven't read much of Marx but I think he got it fundamentally backward on this, I don't see a problem with a content society, for me it provides a stable platform (not a sheeple stable) to achieve anything. I think he's mistakingly assuming that sheeple can't be happy and are easily picked off by the wolves, but It's not a contented person that's vulnerable to fraud; if you've got enough, you're not going to pay a Nigerian prince to have more... I think "original sin" brings it into sharper focus, for me it's an acknowledgement of 'OUR' natural human habit of sometimes doing what we know to be wrong, either by mistake or in a fit of anger or etc., and as Socrates says any damage we do to other's, equally damage's our own soul/self/mind, then in comes Jesus "you're cured mate". All I'm saying is, all (excluding the fringe, nutter cults etc.) religion's have a means to forgive oneself, which leaves it open and legitimate for atheist's too.

That's what you think...

It's a ying yang thing, you can only see the good bits when you understand the bad bits; when your bias is born of a well fed family, you'll never understand the need for food. OK, so why do you need God?

Indeed, "It doesn't matter who I vote for, the government always win" - anon. Except, "drugs are bad... mkay" - can't remember the name... But I consider the "Opiate of the people" to be contentment and what better system of governance; almost every culture starts with a good idea and contains almost every type of human, which, scientifically, would mean the quality of the society (happiness etc.) depends on the starting conditions and we all know where the industrial revolution leads. I don't, I just thought it was funny/ironic; in a psuedo-religious thread, getting a revenge neg for a neg inspired by offence. 🧐 Well, some one clearly said it!!! Besides can you please explain what the bad bit's are? Indeed, but you could try listening to them; you do know I'm an atheist, right... 🤔

Since you clearly can't think beyond your biased view of Christianity, there's little point in trying to reason with you about religion in any of it's iterations. I'd suggest you read 'the sermon on the mount' and ask yourself, honestly, what is Jesus trying to teach and how much he expects to earn from the punter's; it's the sort of question an atheist/scientist should ask, if he didn't want to be a believer. 😉 This is what I mean 🙄, how could you possibly equate a teacher trying to teach the kids how to be nice too each other, with a drug dealer? Unless you're wearing a welders mask, for a bias... No doubt mr anon will neg me for this post too... 🤞

Having run the Cooper hill cheese race, a round of "double Gloucester" is well worth the effort... 😉

Way to miss the point, yet again... A good teacher tell's you how to think, not what to think; that's no more religious specific, than it is gender specific...

When taught correctly... 😉 🙏 😇 🧐 🤔 🙄 Rito...

If Mistermack were content/fine, why did he put me in the red, I just sought balance with my neg not revenge... 😇 Maybe it does, if you don't understand the "be good" message...

Indeed, but my point is critical thinking should highlight the fact that whatever the belief, even non-belief, there is merit in a philosophy that advocates being kind to people in order to be kind to oneself; rather than dismiss, out of hand, any possibility of merit. Just because someone thought about (designed) how best to live a good life, that ultimately benefit's everyone, suggests it wasn't cynically designed to dupe, anyone... Just becuase a scam artist found a way too twist it, is not the fault of Jesus or Mohamed or Buddha etc.

This is where atheism and critical thinking part company; you smugly decide an entire, history of philosophy as weak minded; and so dismiss Taoism, Buddhism, Jesus etc. by equating it with scientologism and the westboro baptist church, talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water... BTW The +1 you got for that post offended me, so I peacefully removed it...

OK, you're doubling down... why? You could, just as easy, not reply...

Your assumption is precisely why it's a fallacious argument, it was never written that way and it's difficult to imargine how you could imply that from that sentence. I apologise if I've done that, to you, in previous thread's (I tend to only answer question's that are pertinent to the thread I'm posting in), as for this thread what question's are you refering to? I can't remember any... Who gets to draw the line? Someone who hasn't got enough clarity of thought to think that that's an unreasonable thing to say, or an impartial court of law? Now imagine that you're Iranian, with most of the world holding you down and trying to starve you into submitting. You're only hope of a meal tomorrow is the prayers you whisper to, what you hope is a real God. Then one of those people, sneer's at your God and tries to make other's laugh at what you believe... What sort of mood would you be in? I'm not saying it's right to make that your excuse, but it sure is a powerful motivation; not everyone can see clearly enough to understand the, horrible, consequences that revenge brings...

Athiest's tend to be more critical, than cynical; for me, I want to see the good in everything, but I don't want the blinkers of someone telling me what beauty is or should be; It leaves me free to find the good in everyone's God, not just yours. Edit. X-posted with joigus.

If you want too actually earn your +1, you're going to have to explain why it's fallacious, preferably without using a strawman fallacy. Way to miss the point 🙄, BTW it's the parable of the madman (like I said, less of the strawmen please). If we exclude those afflicted with a medical condition (we don't have too, but it does introduce an unnecessary complication), the point is (mine and I think, his), the loonatic when viewed from two extremes (the angel Gabriel and the Devil) is impossible to determine, whatever atrocity they seem commit. I think Sir Salman Rushdie would pitty his assailant.

I think it depends more on the host body, accepting a quick feel...

I hesitate to pursue this, given a man's life is in the balance; OTOH he potentially gave his life to ask the same question The question being, who's the loony? It reminds me of "the parable of the madman".

He who thinks two eyes equal's one...