Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Read more

“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.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172147 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>you can kiss some of this (_*_)
Are you a cyclops?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172148 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Now as for the cursing of the fig tree, a literal reading would certainly lead us to believe that Jesus was pissed off and wished death on an out-of-season tree. When considered in that framework of thought, I understand how anyone would reach that conclusion. I came to the same conclusion myself. "Why was kind, gentle Jesus berating a bush?" Good question huh?
But-
Upon re-reading the entire chapter, and understanding a bit more of the context, I think we can understand it in a new way that actually makes sense.
A Palestinian fig tree will usually bear fruit before the leaves appear. This is unique to Palestine. When Jesus saw the tree from a distance, He noticed the leaves but not the fruit. Now another argument comes into play here. "If Jesus is God, and God is omniscient, then why didn't He know there was no fruit on it?" The answer to that is that Jesus didn't always choose to use His powers. They weren't to be misused, but to teach instead.
But now onto the object lesson that Jesus was teaching.
When Jesus got closer to the tree, He saw that even though it had leaves, it wasn't bearing any fruit. It was useless. It was decaying from disease. In ancient times, such a tree would be cut down and used for wood. Jesus was demonstrating to the disciples that Israel's political and national identity had been corrupted, and was no longer producing any useful purpose as a nation. Jesus cursed the fig tree as a warning. Not in spiteful anger. This was meant to show the disciples that the corruption of Israel was taking place from the roots up, just as the disease within the fig tree. Because of the national corruption, the nation of Israel was blind to it's own faults, and would be destroyed by Rome. This did happen in 66-70AD. The tree would be dead from the roots. The roots of Israel were diseased by the political/religious corruption of the ruling class. This is the modern understanding of this passage in it's deeper cultural and historical context.
I think you are making much more of what is essentially a bad bit of editing, here.

But that's okay-- people have been trying to read more into what it is for centuries.

And I've never heard your excuse about this variety of fig outside of religious apologists.

Never from, say, a botanist (for example).

So it rather makes me think it is a crap excuse-- that is, not really valid.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172149 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>no! I said you was a turd
Yes I was, but I've changed myself, thanks for noticing

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172150 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?
The store owner **knew** approximately how long it would take a person unfamiliar with his fabricated route, to complete.

He was a local, after all.

So he **deliberately** planed on either already being closed, or if he saw the out-of-town vehicle returning, closing early-- to deliberately deprive the would-be customer of anything he might need.

That is arrogance beyond measure.

All because of his **pride**.

How **dare** a snooty smartazz make fun of his tiny, limited shop like that?

He would show **him**...

.. and he did: he showed the out-of-towner **exactly** the sort of person the shop owner was:

A smartazz himself, full of pride, and arrogant too.

Nobody won that contest.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172151 Jul 15, 2013
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes your stories have a deeper meaning than what you see in them. In other words your story has been humbled, and you don't even realize it.
Indeed. This is often the case.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172152 Jul 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Okay, you have your view, and I have mine.

I interpreted it differently when I heard it.

I tend to look for the good within what seems on the surface to be negative.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172153 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>cry-baby! whay a P**sy
Respect runs deep in this one.
Did you learn your attitude in the church you go to?

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min sonicfilter 1,205,528
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 13 min RiccardoFire 201,750
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr Gtown71 309,190
How to recover lost data from iPhone/iPad/iPod- (Jan '14) 7 hr kareeo 14
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 10 hr mike tirico 29,264
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Thu Patriot AKA Bozo 4,934
The night Adolph Rupp met Johnny Green Mar 18 alexreese447 1
More from around the web