<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<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>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:58:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Melissa JG</title>
		<link>http://blog.4d2.org/2008/07/03/pleased-to-meet-you/comment-page-1/#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. &quot;Studies&quot; have shown that the image of God is implanted in us (which means that god/s exist/s, of course). Yeah, I&#039;ve heard about that idea. RICHARD DAWKINS wrote about it in the &quot;The Selfish Gene.&quot; Also, Colson&#039;s assertion is more epistemological than theo-psychological. Even Dawkins asserts that he is technically an agnostic because you can&#039;t REALLY know of there&#039;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-page-1/#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&#039;s approach isn&#039;t hypocritical; it&#039;s just plain ignorant. His gross ignorance of human nature and human history shines through that entire article in ways I won&#039;t bother to enumerate.

I&#039;m sick of hearing the same insinuations about atheists time and time again. Self-righteous, amoral people no more represent &quot;atheism&quot; than Pat Robertson does Christianity. Most of the 15% of us (in the U.S.) who don&#039;t conceive of Chuck&#039;s kind of God do so quietly and unassumingly.

And when will people stop talking about &quot;atheism&quot; as though it&#039;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&#039;m addressing you in the second person, Chuck, do you know what the worst part is? Kara and I are married -- that&#039;s right, we&#039;ve co-opted your &quot;sacred institution&quot; -- and there&#039;s a decent chance that one day we&#039;ll have little children and do Satan&#039;s work by not forcing religion (or non-religion) on them. They&#039;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&#039;t have to wait until they&#039;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>

