<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pleased to Meet You</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.4d2.org/2008/07/03/pleased-to-meet-you/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.4d2.org/2008/07/03/pleased-to-meet-you/</link>
	<description>Because everyone else already has one</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:06:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Melissa JG</title>
		<link>http://blog.4d2.org/2008/07/03/pleased-to-meet-you/#comment-602</link>
		<dc:creator>Melissa JG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:19:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.4d2.org/?p=433#comment-602</guid>
		<description>Ha ha ha. This guy is so crazy. "Studies" have shown that the image of God is implanted in us (which means that god/s exist/s, of course). Yeah, I've heard about that idea. RICHARD DAWKINS wrote about it in the "The Selfish Gene." Also, Colson's assertion is more epistemological than theo-psychological. Even Dawkins asserts that he is technically an agnostic because you can't REALLY know of there's a god or not. But how do you really know what you know, and if you know it? All this proves is that Colson has been smoking a ton of weed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha ha ha. This guy is so crazy. &#8220;Studies&#8221; have shown that the image of God is implanted in us (which means that god/s exist/s, of course). Yeah, I&#8217;ve heard about that idea. RICHARD DAWKINS wrote about it in the &#8220;The Selfish Gene.&#8221; Also, Colson&#8217;s assertion is more epistemological than theo-psychological. Even Dawkins asserts that he is technically an agnostic because you can&#8217;t REALLY know of there&#8217;s a god or not. But how do you really know what you know, and if you know it? All this proves is that Colson has been smoking a ton of weed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://blog.4d2.org/2008/07/03/pleased-to-meet-you/#comment-589</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.4d2.org/?p=433#comment-589</guid>
		<description>Mr. Colson's approach isn't hypocritical; it's just plain ignorant. His gross ignorance of human nature and human history shines through that entire article in ways I won't bother to enumerate.

I'm sick of hearing the same insinuations about atheists time and time again. Self-righteous, amoral people no more represent "atheism" than Pat Robertson does Christianity. Most of the 15% of us (in the U.S.) who don't conceive of Chuck's kind of God do so quietly and unassumingly.

And when will people stop talking about "atheism" as though it's some crazy affirmative religious belief? Repeat after me, Chuck:

&lt;em&gt;Atheism does not necessarily imply the active assertion of the non-existence of God. Most atheists merely reject a theist worldview.&lt;/em&gt;

As long as I'm addressing you in the second person, Chuck, do you know what the worst part is? Kara and I are married -- that's right, we've co-opted your "sacred institution" -- and there's a decent chance that one day we'll have little children and do Satan's work by not forcing religion (or non-religion) on them. They'll probably grow up to be functioning members of society like Kara and me, and if they choose to take up evangelical Christianity they won't have to wait until they're facing a prison sentence to do it (ooh, burn).

Now STFU.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Colson&#8217;s approach isn&#8217;t hypocritical; it&#8217;s just plain ignorant. His gross ignorance of human nature and human history shines through that entire article in ways I won&#8217;t bother to enumerate.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sick of hearing the same insinuations about atheists time and time again. Self-righteous, amoral people no more represent &#8220;atheism&#8221; than Pat Robertson does Christianity. Most of the 15% of us (in the U.S.) who don&#8217;t conceive of Chuck&#8217;s kind of God do so quietly and unassumingly.</p>
<p>And when will people stop talking about &#8220;atheism&#8221; as though it&#8217;s some crazy affirmative religious belief? Repeat after me, Chuck:</p>
<p><em>Atheism does not necessarily imply the active assertion of the non-existence of God. Most atheists merely reject a theist worldview.</em></p>
<p>As long as I&#8217;m addressing you in the second person, Chuck, do you know what the worst part is? Kara and I are married &#8212; that&#8217;s right, we&#8217;ve co-opted your &#8220;sacred institution&#8221; &#8212; and there&#8217;s a decent chance that one day we&#8217;ll have little children and do Satan&#8217;s work by not forcing religion (or non-religion) on them. They&#8217;ll probably grow up to be functioning members of society like Kara and me, and if they choose to take up evangelical Christianity they won&#8217;t have to wait until they&#8217;re facing a prison sentence to do it (ooh, burn).</p>
<p>Now STFU.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
