<?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: It&#8217;s Back.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/</link>
	<description>Atheism with Positivity</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:24:22 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: *Smacks Laptop Screen Repeatedly* &#171; PodBlack Blog</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/comment-page-1/#comment-164832</link>
		<dc:creator>*Smacks Laptop Screen Repeatedly* &#171; PodBlack Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 06:20:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-164832</guid>
		<description>[...] Link. Link. Link. Link. Link. Link, oh and beautifully said by Evolution [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Link. Link. Link. Link. Link. Link, oh and beautifully said by Evolution [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Friendly Atheist &#187; It&#8217;s My Blogiversary!</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/comment-page-1/#comment-41516</link>
		<dc:creator>Friendly Atheist &#187; It&#8217;s My Blogiversary!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:20:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-41516</guid>
		<description>[...] After citing many of the mistakes, they eventually took the pamphlet off the site. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] After citing many of the mistakes, they eventually took the pamphlet off the site. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Siamang</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/comment-page-1/#comment-4582</link>
		<dc:creator>Siamang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:12:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-4582</guid>
		<description>Hey, Hemant, It&#039;s Gone now!  Did Parkview and Pastor Tim take down his document?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, Hemant, It&#8217;s Gone now!  Did Parkview and Pastor Tim take down his document?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Siamang</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/comment-page-1/#comment-4581</link>
		<dc:creator>Siamang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-4581</guid>
		<description>Cautious, I have the second version, the one where he updated it the first time, primarily to address the National Geographic Cover.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cautious, I have the second version, the one where he updated it the first time, primarily to address the National Geographic Cover.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Friendly Atheist &#187; It&#8217;s Back. Part 2.</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/comment-page-1/#comment-1131</link>
		<dc:creator>Friendly Atheist &#187; It&#8217;s Back. Part 2.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:48:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1131</guid>
		<description>[...] A few days ago, I wrote about the re-issuing of the Creationist pamphlet on a local church&#8217;s website. A person who attends the church had contacted me about some upcoming sermons they are having. I told her that I was disappointed that Parkview Christian Church had decided to put up the pamphlet even after they said they would remove it due to the massive errors. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] A few days ago, I wrote about the re-issuing of the Creationist pamphlet on a local church&#8217;s website. A person who attends the church had contacted me about some upcoming sermons they are having. I told her that I was disappointed that Parkview Christian Church had decided to put up the pamphlet even after they said they would remove it due to the massive errors. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Notes on &#8220;Creationism for my Child’s Teacher&#8221; &#171; Nes&#8217; Ramblings</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/comment-page-1/#comment-1111</link>
		<dc:creator>Notes on &#8220;Creationism for my Child’s Teacher&#8221; &#171; Nes&#8217; Ramblings</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:01:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1111</guid>
		<description>[...] The Friendly Atheist has a post about a pamphlet from some church or another that&#8217;s supposed to make teachers understand kids who believe in creationism. Or something like that. I don&#8217;t remember right now, as reading it has turned my brains to mush, and I&#8217;ve only made it through page 10 so far. These are just the notes I&#8217;ve compiled of mistakes that I can spot, and know of refutations or corrections. I know there are other mistakes in there, but with some of them I recognize that something is wrong, but can&#8217;t put my finger on it, others I&#8217;m not sure what the correction or refutation is, or maybe it is just too complex a mistake to jot down and correct/refute.  Cover page: - confusion of the meaning of &#8220;theory&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Friendly Atheist has a post about a pamphlet from some church or another that&#8217;s supposed to make teachers understand kids who believe in creationism. Or something like that. I don&#8217;t remember right now, as reading it has turned my brains to mush, and I&#8217;ve only made it through page 10 so far. These are just the notes I&#8217;ve compiled of mistakes that I can spot, and know of refutations or corrections. I know there are other mistakes in there, but with some of them I recognize that something is wrong, but can&#8217;t put my finger on it, others I&#8217;m not sure what the correction or refutation is, or maybe it is just too complex a mistake to jot down and correct/refute.  Cover page: &#8211; confusion of the meaning of &#8220;theory&#8221; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cautiousmaniac</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/comment-page-1/#comment-1110</link>
		<dc:creator>cautiousmaniac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:44:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1110</guid>
		<description>Re-reading the earlier conversation about this document, I remembered that, for a short amount of time, the earlier &quot;pre-revision&quot; version of this document was posted online.  That must mean that at least one person downloaded and saved the original PDF.

I&#039;m interested in seeing how much got revised.  For example, in the earlier version, Pastor Tim referenced Nebraska Man being used as evidence at the Scopes trial (it wasn&#039;t) and being the tooth of a pig (it&#039;s a tooth of a peccary, not the same thing).  He referenced Archaeopteryx as being &quot;really only a few bits and pieces of bone&quot;.  These exact same things are mentioned in this revised document.

The only &quot;revision&quot; that seems to have happened is that the section on thermodynamics was thrown out...

If anyone saved a copy of the original document, let us know?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re-reading the earlier conversation about this document, I remembered that, for a short amount of time, the earlier &#8220;pre-revision&#8221; version of this document was posted online.  That must mean that at least one person downloaded and saved the original PDF.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m interested in seeing how much got revised.  For example, in the earlier version, Pastor Tim referenced Nebraska Man being used as evidence at the Scopes trial (it wasn&#8217;t) and being the tooth of a pig (it&#8217;s a tooth of a peccary, not the same thing).  He referenced Archaeopteryx as being &#8220;really only a few bits and pieces of bone&#8221;.  These exact same things are mentioned in this revised document.</p>
<p>The only &#8220;revision&#8221; that seems to have happened is that the section on thermodynamics was thrown out&#8230;</p>
<p>If anyone saved a copy of the original document, let us know?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: afarensis</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/comment-page-1/#comment-1109</link>
		<dc:creator>afarensis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:43:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1109</guid>
		<description>I have responded to his paleoanthropological arguments &lt;a href=&quot;http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/11/25/fisking_creationist/#more&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have responded to his paleoanthropological arguments <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/11/25/fisking_creationist/#more" rel="nofollow">here</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monado</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/comment-page-1/#comment-1106</link>
		<dc:creator>Monado</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Nov 2006 14:44:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1106</guid>
		<description>John T. is absolutely right. 

&quot;Creation science&quot; is all about quoting, especially from obsolete sourrces. It&#039;s about argument and appeal to authority. It&#039;s not about questioning, testing, or the scientific method. Questions are not welcome in religion: it&#039;s all about bowing down to authority. 

Naturally, religious parents don&#039;t want their children to get into the habit of questioning authority: independent thought will lead to Big Trouble as children ask about the symbolic cannibalism in the Eucharist, the dubious practice punishing an innocent scapegoat, and (eventually, if they can get past the sacred cow in our broadcast industry) the total lack of evidence that Jesus ever existed as a historical person and the persuasive textual evidence that he&#039;s another example of a Hero Myth, along with Odin, Gilgamesh, and Buddha.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John T. is absolutely right. </p>
<p>&#8220;Creation science&#8221; is all about quoting, especially from obsolete sourrces. It&#8217;s about argument and appeal to authority. It&#8217;s not about questioning, testing, or the scientific method. Questions are not welcome in religion: it&#8217;s all about bowing down to authority. </p>
<p>Naturally, religious parents don&#8217;t want their children to get into the habit of questioning authority: independent thought will lead to Big Trouble as children ask about the symbolic cannibalism in the Eucharist, the dubious practice punishing an innocent scapegoat, and (eventually, if they can get past the sacred cow in our broadcast industry) the total lack of evidence that Jesus ever existed as a historical person and the persuasive textual evidence that he&#8217;s another example of a Hero Myth, along with Odin, Gilgamesh, and Buddha.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/comment-page-1/#comment-1105</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:08:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1105</guid>
		<description>Christensen said,

&lt;blockquote&gt;Although theists have had their crusades and inquistions and in fighting, the record seems to lie with the atheists. 100 MILLION died in the 20th century alone at the hands of practitioners of atheistic philosophies ...&lt;/blockquote&gt;

In one respect you are sort of correct: the real issue is not religion versus atheism, but dogma versus enlightenment. Communist, racist or nationalist dogma is no improvement whatever on religious dogma.

I suspect however that you are repeating the oft-made error of classifying Nazism as an &quot;atheistic philosophy&quot; - it was not. Hitler was a Catholic and did not renounce his belief in God. It is entirely possible, even probable, that his Catholic upbringing was the source of his anti-semitism.

And although there has been no destruction of religion, most of modern civilisation can thank its existence to religion being put in its place and losing the stifling influence it had until the seventeenth century.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Christensen said,</p>
<blockquote><p>Although theists have had their crusades and inquistions and in fighting, the record seems to lie with the atheists. 100 MILLION died in the 20th century alone at the hands of practitioners of atheistic philosophies &#8230;</p></blockquote>
<p>In one respect you are sort of correct: the real issue is not religion versus atheism, but dogma versus enlightenment. Communist, racist or nationalist dogma is no improvement whatever on religious dogma.</p>
<p>I suspect however that you are repeating the oft-made error of classifying Nazism as an &#8220;atheistic philosophy&#8221; &#8211; it was not. Hitler was a Catholic and did not renounce his belief in God. It is entirely possible, even probable, that his Catholic upbringing was the source of his anti-semitism.</p>
<p>And although there has been no destruction of religion, most of modern civilisation can thank its existence to religion being put in its place and losing the stifling influence it had until the seventeenth century.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
