Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239512 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172127 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>so darling you admit GOD exist??? it is finish
Disparate?
If, I think you read right passed that little word.

Since: Jul 13

Saint Petersburg, Russia

#172128 Jul 15, 2013
Yeah, no God here. We are just very smart animals, who can use high tehnologies, i m just waiting when pig or monkey can do same things, that human can do. Of corse no God or Ufo intervention. Atheism for the win!
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172129 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>no
Did you just admit to being a tard?:O)
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172130 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
Its off to work I go! Hey all my atheist peeps see my middle finger? I shall return!
Is that you IQ?:O)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172131 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you view it that way?
Because I have been in retail business. I have also been-- and still am-- a customer.

I may not agree with the business owner's attitude, but there is no reason to treat a potential customer with contempt--as what happened in your story.

Your business owner was extremely arrogant.

Not uncommon.

But he was also quite full of pride-- isn't that a sin?

In his pride, instead of simply ignoring the rude out-of-towner, he treated him with evil intent.

Literally-- he deliberately and with malice set out to cause him as much harm as he could--without actually doing direct violence.

That is not good.

Not good at all.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172132 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
I see it as not punishing the snooty customer, but as giving him a chance to re-evaluate his initial behavior.
He will **never** become a customer--ever.

After the horrific way he was **deliberately** treated?

He will tell everyone he knows, to avoid the horrible, vain and prideful store owner.

A good customer is a treasure, true.

But a bad customer will tell everyone he knows-- and they will tell everyone they know-- and it repeats endlessly.

If the prideful owner had treated the customer with kindness? In spite of his snotty attitude?

He **likely** would have had a sale, and that'd been that-- end of story.

But since the owner let his **pride** get the better of him-- and he **deliberately** treated the never-again-a customer like crap?

He not only lost **that** customer, he will have lost anyone else that former customer speaks to in the future.

Evil **always** begats more evil.

Always.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172133 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
I'm curious as to how that view is any less arrogant than that of the store owner. The store owner could have kicked the snooty customer out. And then what would the customer learn?
The store owner is **not** in the position to teach **anything*.

That is **not** his job-- his job is to sell his stuff, to pay his bills, to feed his family.

More over?

He is in a position of authority over the potential customer-- he **literally** has the customer over a barrel-- the only store around.

What did he do? He **abused** that authority, by **deliberately** doing evil to the would-be customer instead.

Evil fosters more evil.

Always.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172134 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Your reply seems, on the surface, to endorse the actions of the snooty customer as somehow socially acceptable. Am I interpreting that correctly?
The customer is in the inferior position-- the weaker position.

He is in **need**. Thus? He is automatically at the mercy of the one in the **superior** position-- the owner of the goods to sell.

So his snotty attitude can be safely ignored as that of a bore or other socially inept person.

The store owner can ignore the crap, take his money and laugh all the way to the bank.

In fact? Since he had a monopoly, he could just as easily added a 20% "azzhole tax" to the price of his stuff, and the customer never being the wiser. The owner laughing behind his back all the way to the deposit-window.

But what does he do? He **abuses** his superior position by **deliberately** setting out to cause harm to the person who was simply rude.

Who wins here?

The customer will **never** shop there again-- nor will he take the proven-dangerous advice of an arrogant, full-of-pride store owner.

The owner did not make a sale, either.

Nobody wins.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#172135 Jul 15, 2013
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you learn your attitude from the one you call jesus?
you can kiss some of this (_*_)
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172136 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you view it that way?
I see it as not punishing the snooty customer, but as giving him a chance to re-evaluate his initial behavior. Remember, the guest was the smug one and was being sneaky and under-handed about it. The shop owner merely gave the snooter an opportunity to realize it for himself.
When I reiterated that the out-of-towner had been smug and condescending you replied "So?" as if the out-of-towner had every right to treat the store owner this way without any penalty or sense of accountability. Your reply seems, on the surface, to endorse the actions of the snooty customer as somehow socially acceptable. Am I interpreting that correctly?
I'm curious as to how that view is any less arrogant than that of the store owner. The store owner could have kicked the snooty customer out. And then what would the customer learn? Would he learn humility or would he learn that he just isn't welcome in that store any longer? My thoughts upon first hearing that were that the store owner was still willing to allow the customer to come back, but instead of pointing out the customer's behavior, let him do a little work that shows him he's not as smart as he thought he was. There is no better teacher than self induced humiliation. The snooty man was not obligated to follow the owner's instructions.
The best lessons are the ones that cause us discomfort and embarrassment, because they cause us (if we're honestly observant) to realize that we're no better than the next guy, and they hold us accountable. If we're so smug and snooty that we don't recognize it for ourselves, what's the better choice? Are we to be banished by the owner with no hope of redemption; or do we learn a lasting lesson from a journey in which we come to realize it by experience and humility?
In the end, the store owner did our a snooty customer a favor, not a disservice. The disservice would have been to kick the customer out with no redemption, or to let him continue with his condescending behavior which would only encourage him to continue such behavior in the future.
What would you have done?
First off even if the customer was snooty, sense when does two wrongs make a right?
Secondly because he asked for a story with more choices with a attitute, the store own took offense and sent him on a wild goose chase. Not nice.
I would of either told where he could find one, or that I did know of one. I wouldn't of sent him off to learn a lesson for wanting more than what I had, even if he had a attitude.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#172137 Jul 15, 2013
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you just admit to being a tard?:O)
no! I said you was a turd

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172138 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
My thoughts upon first hearing that were that the store owner was still willing to allow the customer to come back, but instead of pointing out the customer's behavior, let him do a little work that shows him he's not as smart as he thought he was.
No-- the store owner **deliberately** set out to harm the rude out-of-towner.

More to the point? He **knew** his wild-goose chase would take too long, and let him close up shop-- also depriving the customer of anything he may have needed at that store.

A double- whammy of deliberate evil.

Lesson learned?

NEVER take the advice of a prideful store owner-- he **will** do his best to mess you up.

What did the store owner get for his pride?

Certainly **not** a sale that day... if the rude out-of-towner spreads his tale of woe?

He likely would lose even more customers-- I know **I** would never shop there again, after hearing what he did.

Giving rudeness back for rudeness is **never** moral, ethical or even a good idea.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#172139 Jul 15, 2013
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that you IQ?:O)
don't be mad! cuz Im more intellectual than you... notice your screen (_*_) take a lick if ya want to

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172140 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
In the end, the store owner did our a snooty customer a favor, not a disservice.
Indeed he did-- the customer will **never** ever shop at that store again in his life.

And he will tell everyone he knows to **never** shop there either.

And I agree: that is a favor beyond price.

The full-of-pride store owner does not deserve to be in business.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172141 Jul 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The story of Job is rife with free will.
Indeed. Just as long as you ignore everyone who dies in that horrid tale of terrorism and torture.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#172142 Jul 15, 2013
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
First off even if the customer was snooty, sense when does two wrongs make a right?
Secondly because he asked for a story with more choices with a attitute, the store own took offense and sent him on a wild goose chase. Not nice.
I would of either told where he could find one, or that I did know of one. I wouldn't of sent him off to learn a lesson for wanting more than what I had, even if he had a attitude.
cry-baby! whay a P**sy

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#172143 Jul 15, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
leave topix atheism forum !
not till you get on them knees and beg Jesus to save your sorry soul...... ya hear me boy
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172144 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think the store owner showed condescension? I never said he did. You're assuming he did. Why are you assuming that?
Yes the store owner was closing up as the snooty customer returned, not BECAUSE the snooty customer returned. The store owner was closing because it was closing time. Are you speculating on emotional and volitional grounds?
There are two types of humiliation.(Humili being the root- as in "humility")
One type is that of revenge. You're assuming that's what happened in the story I used. The other type is teaching. When we're humiliated, we're humiliated because somebody is cruel and wants to injure us, OR we've been unfair to others and when we realize it, it's humiliating, especially if we're in the company of those we treated badly. We feel awful about it. Sometimes we need to be humiliated in a kind way.
The young snooty man's behavior was the issue here. Not the merchandise, not the customer service issues, but only the cocky smugness of one man, in another man's place of business. The store owner helped the young man. He gave him excellent customer service.
He gave directions designed to redeem the young man, not cast him out without learning from it. If revenge was the goal, why bring the offender back to your own doorstep?
1) Be content with what's in front of you when in another man's home or business.
2) If not satisfied, don't be snooty. Be gracious.
3) When holding another person accountable, give them a way to learn the lesson AND redeem themselves and welcome them back when they do.
Sorry I don't see the store own doing anything other than being a smart butt. I say treat people the way you want to be treated.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172145 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
What would you have done?
As it turns out? I **am** in the business of selling things to people; I'm self employed.

The money from rude customers spends just as nicely as the money from the nicey-nice ones.

Sometimes, the rude ones are more honest.

But in the end? If a potential customer gets out of hand? I always have the option to tell them to have a nice day, walk away, and then ignore their telephone calls from henceforth.

I seldom have to do that; rudeness, I just ignore. Since I'm fixing AC's, many times their rudeness is due to being nearly overwhelmed by the heat, and I don't take it personally--even if it is said in a personal way.

But I would **never** ever deliberately cause someone harm or waste their time. That serves no one, and helps no cause.

I'd simply walk away, not looking back.

That is the best "revenge" anyhow-- living well, while a rude person will continue to be rude--and will most likely get rudeness back in return.

Evil always begats more evil-- never kindness.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172146 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I know about the controversy in deciding whether Yeshua was human or divine. I do know that Constantine brought the two opposing sides to the table to decide, but I do not believe that he tried to directly influence the Council of Nicea. The evidence I've seen doesn't support that theory to the extent that sensationalist authors such as Dan Brown would have us believe.
I haven't read Dan Brown-- so I cannot say one way or another.

But you are wrong on at least one point: the group had decided to put Revelations into the apochraphia[sp] group-- but Constantine required an exclusivity clause for his newly-minted religion, so he could justify forcing by violence people to join his new club.

It's on record that Constantine overrode the will of the group in that regard.

So I have no doubts at all, that he also used his force of personality, to override other decisions too.

It does appear Constantine suffered from a massive dose of hubris, after all.

And that rather puts a negative spin on the whole project.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 12 min TerryE 5,651
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min Bluestater 1,234,763
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 hr cpeter1313 309,954
News Former UConn Player Pleads Guilty -- Courant.com (Oct '07) 11 hr tom wingo 22
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 23 hr Pietro Armando 201,811
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) May 27 tom wingo 29,767
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... May 25 Timotion 7
More from around the web