<?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: ID:  Religious Motivation = Religion?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/id-religious-motivation-religion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/id-religious-motivation-religion/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:53:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: John the Skeptic</title>
		<link>http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/id-religious-motivation-religion/#comment-75477</link>
		<dc:creator>John the Skeptic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:36:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/id-religious-motivation-religion/#comment-75477</guid>
		<description>Every one of these arguments, as I recall, was trotted out by the cdesign proponentsists in the &lt;i&gt;Kitzmiller&lt;/i&gt; trial.  Every one of them failed.  Has anything happened in the 2 1/2 years since then to make these arguments more substantial?  No.  The author of these posts has shown us nothing new.

The author apparently would like to pretend that &lt;i&gt;Kitzmiller&lt;/i&gt; never happened, and that all of these arguments were not carefully examined, and thoroughly debunked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Every one of these arguments, as I recall, was trotted out by the cdesign proponentsists in the <i>Kitzmiller</i> trial.  Every one of them failed.  Has anything happened in the 2 1/2 years since then to make these arguments more substantial?  No.  The author of these posts has shown us nothing new.</p>
<p>The author apparently would like to pretend that <i>Kitzmiller</i> never happened, and that all of these arguments were not carefully examined, and thoroughly debunked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BobC</title>
		<link>http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/id-religious-motivation-religion/#comment-75465</link>
		<dc:creator>BobC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:49:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/id-religious-motivation-religion/#comment-75465</guid>
		<description>"Should we reject science performed by an atheist because of his religious worldview?"

Wait a minute. An atheist, who considers all religions to be idiotic childish nonsense, is religious?

Non-religious people are religious?

Please use the word religious only for people who are stupid and gullible enough to believe in magical sky fairies.

To call an atheist religious is an insult.

The god nuts love to make up their own definitions of words instead of using the dictionary definition. I suppose if somebody is stupid enough to believe there's an invisible man hiding in the clouds, then he's stupid enough to call non-religious people religious.

By the way, people who believe in intelligent design are pathetic idiots. Design means magical creation, the designer is a magical fairy, and there's nothing intelligent about this idiotic religious belief. Religious people should grow up and join the 21st century. Magic is for childish retards who want to live in the Dark Ages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Should we reject science performed by an atheist because of his religious worldview?&#8221;</p>
<p>Wait a minute. An atheist, who considers all religions to be idiotic childish nonsense, is religious?</p>
<p>Non-religious people are religious?</p>
<p>Please use the word religious only for people who are stupid and gullible enough to believe in magical sky fairies.</p>
<p>To call an atheist religious is an insult.</p>
<p>The god nuts love to make up their own definitions of words instead of using the dictionary definition. I suppose if somebody is stupid enough to believe there&#8217;s an invisible man hiding in the clouds, then he&#8217;s stupid enough to call non-religious people religious.</p>
<p>By the way, people who believe in intelligent design are pathetic idiots. Design means magical creation, the designer is a magical fairy, and there&#8217;s nothing intelligent about this idiotic religious belief. Religious people should grow up and join the 21st century. Magic is for childish retards who want to live in the Dark Ages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John the Skeptic</title>
		<link>http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/id-religious-motivation-religion/#comment-75439</link>
		<dc:creator>John the Skeptic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/id-religious-motivation-religion/#comment-75439</guid>
		<description>“Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

 - William Dembski, writing for the Christian Magazine "Touchstone" in 1991.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”</p>
<p> - William Dembski, writing for the Christian Magazine &#8220;Touchstone&#8221; in 1991.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
