Comments on: Check the Box, Get Arrested http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/ Reasonable Thoughts on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:53:58 -0400 hourly 1 By: Daily Digest for October 13th « Bridget K McKinney http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-70037 Daily Digest for October 13th « Bridget K McKinney Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:52:00 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-70037 [...] Shared Check the Box, Get Arrested [...] [...] Shared Check the Box, Get Arrested [...]

]]> By: The Big Blue Frog http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65837 The Big Blue Frog Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:41:56 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65837 I don't think you understood what I was saying. The answer to your second, third and fourth questions are irrelevant because we're not talking about a philosophical concept of a small-"g" god. We're talking about the Christian big-"G" God. In any case, your second question poses God as a concept, not a percept. Since concepts are generic intellectual constructs, that would lead us to answer the question "no." Your third question reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between faith and belief. Belief can be based on evidence, or not. Faith is the form of belief based on a lack of evidence, or the rejection of evidence. Therefore, your confusion of "belief" with "faith" negates the question. Your third question I've already addressed. We're talking about the God described in the Old and New Testaments and possibly the Apocrypha (depending on which version of the Bible this organization uses). The questions of God's composure, living quarters and source are irrelevant, because those questions are not answered in the Christian scripture, and we are discussing a Christian god. I don’t think you understood what I was saying. The answer to your second, third and fourth questions are irrelevant because we’re not talking about a philosophical concept of a small-”g” god. We’re talking about the Christian big-”G” God. In any case, your second question poses God as a concept, not a percept. Since concepts are generic intellectual constructs, that would lead us to answer the question “no.” Your third question reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between faith and belief. Belief can be based on evidence, or not. Faith is the form of belief based on a lack of evidence, or the rejection of evidence. Therefore, your confusion of “belief” with “faith” negates the question. Your third question I’ve already addressed. We’re talking about the God described in the Old and New Testaments and possibly the Apocrypha (depending on which version of the Bible this organization uses). The questions of God’s composure, living quarters and source are irrelevant, because those questions are not answered in the Christian scripture, and we are discussing a Christian god.

]]> By: Francesc http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65813 Francesc Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:36:27 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65813 "The Christian scriptures are (fairly) clear on what God is" Are you sure? So... what is God made of? Where does He live, or where is He? What created him/How did He become into existence? Is He against war or in favour, or it depends on the enemies? Did He created Satan and badness on conscience, or it was just an error? “The Christian scriptures are (fairly) clear on what God is”
Are you sure?
So… what is God made of? Where does He live, or where is He? What created him/How did He become into existence?
Is He against war or in favour, or it depends on the enemies? Did He created Satan and badness on conscience, or it was just an error?

]]> By: rodneyAnonymous http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65793 rodneyAnonymous Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:05:09 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65793 Sarcasm is very difficult to communicate by writing. Sarcasm is very difficult to communicate by writing.

]]> By: Jim http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65792 Jim Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:36 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65792 I know the rules and laws are different in GB but, if the ad itself doesn't clearly state that it is either an ad or that the question is not meant to be answered, you have to agree that there is going to be some idiot out there that will take it literally and do exactly what this guy did. He is only guilty of answering the question in a manner that was not intended but not explicitly forbidden. I think what the guy is going to get in trouble for is not the defacing of the ad but the defacing of the plastic that was protecting it, which I imagine is owned by the city or someone else, not the company that owns the ad. I know the rules and laws are different in GB but, if the ad itself doesn’t clearly state that it is either an ad or that the question is not meant to be answered, you have to agree that there is going to be some idiot out there that will take it literally and do exactly what this guy did. He is only guilty of answering the question in a manner that was not intended but not explicitly forbidden.

I think what the guy is going to get in trouble for is not the defacing of the ad but the defacing of the plastic that was protecting it, which I imagine is owned by the city or someone else, not the company that owns the ad.

]]> By: Olaf http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65780 Olaf Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:59:20 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65780 Actually no. Atheists would probably joke about it that a religious person had no clue that this was an ad! . And they will surely joke about the fact that both the atheist and the religious person got arrested by 6 policemen! Actually no. Atheists would probably joke about it that a religious person had no clue that this was an ad! .

And they will surely joke about the fact that both the atheist and the religious person got arrested by 6 policemen!

]]> By: The Big Blue Frog http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65767 The Big Blue Frog Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:34:23 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65767 Actually, Leo, the fact that this is a Christian website and campaign allow us to infer #2, #3 and #4. The Christian scriptures are (fairly) clear on what God is, what constitutes his existence and what belief in him requires. There's no need to go into semantics. Actually, Leo, the fact that this is a Christian website and campaign allow us to infer #2, #3 and #4. The Christian scriptures are (fairly) clear on what God is, what constitutes his existence and what belief in him requires. There’s no need to go into semantics.

]]> By: leo http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65765 leo Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:15:50 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65765 1. Yes/No ratio may be just the ratio of `faith` people reading the Net not in general population. 2. Question is incorrect. Define "exist". "Science [as an object] does not _exist_". "Number _two_ does not exist". 3. Define "believe"... ("I _believe_ in science". "Scientists _believe_ that speed of light is limited in our universe") 4. Define "God"... :) 1. Yes/No ratio may be just the ratio of `faith` people reading the Net not in general population.
2. Question is incorrect. Define “exist”. “Science [as an object] does not _exist_”. “Number _two_ does not exist”.
3. Define “believe”… (“I _believe_ in science”. “Scientists _believe_ that speed of light is limited in our universe”)
4. Define “God”…

:)

]]> By: The Big Blue Frog http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65753 The Big Blue Frog Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:17:31 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65753 It's 84% to 11% against, as of my vote with 5% undecided. I think their poll has backfired on them. Noticed their prominent use of that freak Bear Grylls. He's an embarrassment to survival experts around the world. Anyone with any survival training watches him and cringes at his stupidity. Now that I know he has a supernatural worldview, everything about his behavior makes perfect sense. It’s 84% to 11% against, as of my vote with 5% undecided. I think their poll has backfired on them. Noticed their prominent use of that freak Bear Grylls. He’s an embarrassment to survival experts around the world. Anyone with any survival training watches him and cringes at his stupidity. Now that I know he has a supernatural worldview, everything about his behavior makes perfect sense.

]]> By: Zotz http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65707 Zotz Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:15:54 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65707 LOLOLOLOL... LOLOLOLOL…

]]> By: Custador http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65704 Custador Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:43:28 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65704 The site's down - I'll bet £1000 right here and right now that the poll is either down, replaced or re-set when it comes back up. Christians: Hating the truth since 0001. The site’s down – I’ll bet £1000 right here and right now that the poll is either down, replaced or re-set when it comes back up. Christians: Hating the truth since 0001.

]]> By: Brg http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65676 Brg Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:00:26 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65676 There was sometime ago an ad made entirely with chocolate, which was displayed on a street. The ad lasted some ten minutes, as people passing by stopped to take bites off it. Should their actions be considered vandalism also? If not, why is this case different than ticking off a box on this ad? There was sometime ago an ad made entirely with chocolate, which was displayed on a street. The ad lasted some ten minutes, as people passing by stopped to take bites off it.

Should their actions be considered vandalism also? If not, why is this case different than ticking off a box on this ad?

]]> By: Zotz http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65659 Zotz Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:53:46 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65659 Oh for chrissakes! You guys arguing over the morality of "vandalism" are such pooosies. What if this guy was after some theater, a sort of civil disobedience? Then getting arrested and going to court was part of the plan! Good on 'im! Pretty clear he's stirred up the masses, which is the point! No is 84% (See?) Oh for chrissakes! You guys arguing over the morality of “vandalism” are such pooosies.

What if this guy was after some theater, a sort of civil disobedience? Then getting arrested and going to court was part of the plan!

Good on ‘im! Pretty clear he’s stirred up the masses, which is the point!

No is 84% (See?)

]]> By: Francesc http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65637 Francesc Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:47:28 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65637 I mean, 10,6 ; 83,6; 5,8 I mean, 10,6 ; 83,6; 5,8

]]> By: Francesc http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/#comment-65636 Francesc Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:44:13 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=7472#comment-65636 That may happen when you round numbers That may happen when you round numbers

]]>