<?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: Post-Debate Recap</title>
	<atom:link href="http://inatheistbus.org/2009/10/20/post-debate-recap/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://inatheistbus.org/2009/10/20/post-debate-recap/</link>
	<description>Bringing the Atheist Bus to Indiana</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:12:38 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: GeorgeRic</title>
		<link>http://inatheistbus.org/2009/10/20/post-debate-recap/comment-page-1/#comment-3261</link>
		<dc:creator>GeorgeRic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:12:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inatheistbus.org/?p=361#comment-3261</guid>
		<description>Of course you can be good and not believe in God.  Of course, there is a problem in &#039;what is good?&#039;   The debate on killing babies is a prime example of the problem.
   It pleases me to let open-minded people know about new ways of pondering about the age-old questions.  With the existence of &#039;Techie Worlds&#039; (available at amazon.com) believers in Christianity can hold their views utilizing sound logic, clear thinking and a mechanistic view of worlds.  Applying Flatland&#039;s concept of contiguous dimensional worlds,  Trinity, Resurrection, Judgment and soul are sensible and mechanically viable beliefs.  &#039;Techie Worlds&#039; follows that rule of science by which individual details are tested for their conformity to the overarching hypothesis.  Admittedly, agnostics may choose  not to follow such obvious and sensible logic, but no longer can they denigrate believers for fuzzy thinking.   Moslems and pagans who read and understand the sound logic of the Flatland concept must adopt the reasonable Trinitarian view.  &#039;Techie Worlds&#039; will make them abandon the ways of terror an adopt the way of love.  Techie Worlds is not standard  preacher-prattle.  Only by reading it can you open your mind to its valid way of understanding Christianity.
GeorgeRic</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course you can be good and not believe in God.  Of course, there is a problem in &#8216;what is good?&#8217;   The debate on killing babies is a prime example of the problem.<br />
   It pleases me to let open-minded people know about new ways of pondering about the age-old questions.  With the existence of &#8216;Techie Worlds&#8217; (available at amazon.com) believers in Christianity can hold their views utilizing sound logic, clear thinking and a mechanistic view of worlds.  Applying Flatland&#8217;s concept of contiguous dimensional worlds,  Trinity, Resurrection, Judgment and soul are sensible and mechanically viable beliefs.  &#8216;Techie Worlds&#8217; follows that rule of science by which individual details are tested for their conformity to the overarching hypothesis.  Admittedly, agnostics may choose  not to follow such obvious and sensible logic, but no longer can they denigrate believers for fuzzy thinking.   Moslems and pagans who read and understand the sound logic of the Flatland concept must adopt the reasonable Trinitarian view.  &#8216;Techie Worlds&#8217; will make them abandon the ways of terror an adopt the way of love.  Techie Worlds is not standard  preacher-prattle.  Only by reading it can you open your mind to its valid way of understanding Christianity.<br />
GeorgeRic</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 4Him</title>
		<link>http://inatheistbus.org/2009/10/20/post-debate-recap/comment-page-1/#comment-3260</link>
		<dc:creator>4Him</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:08:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inatheistbus.org/?p=361#comment-3260</guid>
		<description>Thank you for the debate.  However, Dan Barker was very offensive while Dan Waugh kept only to his belief and what Christ followers believe instead of bashing atheist.  Dan Barker was very disrespectful by calling Christians idiots and never directly answered questions that were posed by Waugh (like a real policitian).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the debate.  However, Dan Barker was very offensive while Dan Waugh kept only to his belief and what Christ followers believe instead of bashing atheist.  Dan Barker was very disrespectful by calling Christians idiots and never directly answered questions that were posed by Waugh (like a real policitian).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
