<?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: Bad Arguments</title>
	<atom:link href="http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/bad-arguments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/bad-arguments/</link>
	<description>Your Thoughts, Everyone&#039;s Wisdom</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:14:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ADKing</title>
		<link>http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/bad-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-10435</link>
		<dc:creator>ADKing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2010 02:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=806#comment-10435</guid>
		<description>Great post! Mentions of Hitler (and Stalin, occasionally) seem to plague so many online debates about theism/atheism. Hitler may have claimed the profession of Christianity, but to imply a correlation between them is, quite simply, ludicrous. Anyone who can read has the capacity to understand that Hitler&#039;s actions violated even the most primitive and basic tenets of Christianity--and Stalin likewise of moral/humanistic atheism. Let&#039;s move past these useless arguments and get down to the real issues!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post! Mentions of Hitler (and Stalin, occasionally) seem to plague so many online debates about theism/atheism. Hitler may have claimed the profession of Christianity, but to imply a correlation between them is, quite simply, ludicrous. Anyone who can read has the capacity to understand that Hitler&#8217;s actions violated even the most primitive and basic tenets of Christianity&#8211;and Stalin likewise of moral/humanistic atheism. Let&#8217;s move past these useless arguments and get down to the real issues!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth</title>
		<link>http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/bad-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-713</link>
		<dc:creator>Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:33:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=806#comment-713</guid>
		<description>God has intent whilst  scientists find no intent behind what goes on in the Cosmos. This is a great  contradiction. The atelic or teleonomic argument argues that the weight of evidence reveals no teleology- foreordained out comes- at work in the Cosmos, but rather teleonomy at work - mo preordained outcomes.
 So, contrary to Kenneth Miller, as Jerry Cone notes in his &quot;Seeing and Believing,,&quot;  Bart Klink in his &quot; The Untenability of Theistic Evolution &quot; and Amiel  Rossow in his &quot; Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller:How  Professor Miller Finds God,&quot;  does as Nocterro notes, if this not that as was the case with oxidation   replacing phlogiston. God  then rests as phlogiston- nowhere.  All three articles are on line.
 And to show that He has those contradictions makes for the ignostic challenge . His attributes are incoherent and contradict each other.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>God has intent whilst  scientists find no intent behind what goes on in the Cosmos. This is a great  contradiction. The atelic or teleonomic argument argues that the weight of evidence reveals no teleology- foreordained out comes- at work in the Cosmos, but rather teleonomy at work &#8211; mo preordained outcomes.<br />
 So, contrary to Kenneth Miller, as Jerry Cone notes in his &#8220;Seeing and Believing,,&#8221;  Bart Klink in his &#8221; The Untenability of Theistic Evolution &#8221; and Amiel  Rossow in his &#8221; Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller:How  Professor Miller Finds God,&#8221;  does as Nocterro notes, if this not that as was the case with oxidation   replacing phlogiston. God  then rests as phlogiston- nowhere.  All three articles are on line.<br />
 And to show that He has those contradictions makes for the ignostic challenge . His attributes are incoherent and contradict each other.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth</title>
		<link>http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/bad-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-10000</link>
		<dc:creator>Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=806#comment-10000</guid>
		<description>God has intent whilst  scientists find no intent behind what goes on in the Cosmos. This is a great  contradiction. The atelic or teleonomic argument argues that the weight of evidence reveals no teleology- foreordained out comes- at work in the Cosmos, but rather teleonomy at work - mo preordained outcomes.
 So, contrary to Kenneth Miller, as Jerry Cone notes in his &quot;Seeing and Believing,,&quot;  Bart Klink in his &quot; The Untenability of Theistic Evolution &quot; and Amiel  Rossow in his &quot; Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller:How  Professor Miller Finds God,&quot;  does as Nocterro notes, if this not that as was the case with oxidation   replacing phlogiston. God  then rests as phlogiston- nowhere.  All three articles are on line.
 And to show that He has those contradictions makes for the ignostic challenge . His attributes are incoherent and contradict each other.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>God has intent whilst  scientists find no intent behind what goes on in the Cosmos. This is a great  contradiction. The atelic or teleonomic argument argues that the weight of evidence reveals no teleology- foreordained out comes- at work in the Cosmos, but rather teleonomy at work &#8211; mo preordained outcomes.<br />
 So, contrary to Kenneth Miller, as Jerry Cone notes in his &#8220;Seeing and Believing,,&#8221;  Bart Klink in his &#8221; The Untenability of Theistic Evolution &#8221; and Amiel  Rossow in his &#8221; Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller:How  Professor Miller Finds God,&#8221;  does as Nocterro notes, if this not that as was the case with oxidation   replacing phlogiston. God  then rests as phlogiston- nowhere.  All three articles are on line.<br />
 And to show that He has those contradictions makes for the ignostic challenge . His attributes are incoherent and contradict each other.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bravo Nocterro&#160;&#124;&#160;Choosing Hats</title>
		<link>http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/bad-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-448</link>
		<dc:creator>Bravo Nocterro&#160;&#124;&#160;Choosing Hats</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=806#comment-448</guid>
		<description>[...] to Nocterro (who sometimes comments here) for writing a pretty clear explanation of what presuppositionalists have been saying for some time now. Showing [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to Nocterro (who sometimes comments here) for writing a pretty clear explanation of what presuppositionalists have been saying for some time now. Showing [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Collin H.</title>
		<link>http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/bad-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-425</link>
		<dc:creator>Collin H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:19:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=806#comment-425</guid>
		<description>Good post, but you also should of put something about how science and God contradict each other on the atheistic side of bad arguments. lol </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post, but you also should of put something about how science and God contradict each other on the atheistic side of bad arguments. lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Collin H.</title>
		<link>http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/bad-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-9999</link>
		<dc:creator>Collin H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=806#comment-9999</guid>
		<description>Good post, but you also should of put something about how science and God contradict each other on the atheistic side of bad arguments. lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post, but you also should of put something about how science and God contradict each other on the atheistic side of bad arguments. lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ck.</title>
		<link>http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/bad-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-385</link>
		<dc:creator>Ck.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:05:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=806#comment-385</guid>
		<description>Good article Noct, you&#039;re right, both sides have their bad arguments. One I particularly dislike is the &quot;&#8220;This person who shares your worldview was/is a bad person.&#8221; </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good article Noct, you&#039;re right, both sides have their bad arguments. One I particularly dislike is the &quot;&ldquo;This person who shares your worldview was/is a bad person.&rdquo;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ck.</title>
		<link>http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/bad-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-9998</link>
		<dc:creator>Ck.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=806#comment-9998</guid>
		<description>Good article Noct, you&#039;re right, both sides have their bad arguments. One I particularly dislike is the &quot;&#8220;This person who shares your worldview was/is a bad person.&#8221;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good article Noct, you&#039;re right, both sides have their bad arguments. One I particularly dislike is the &quot;&ldquo;This person who shares your worldview was/is a bad person.&rdquo;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MitchLeBlanc</title>
		<link>http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/bad-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-369</link>
		<dc:creator>MitchLeBlanc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:35:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=806#comment-369</guid>
		<description>Good work, I am especially pleased that you identified fallacies employed amongst atheists as well. Far too often they seem to believe they are the intellectually superior... that&#039;s just not true. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good work, I am especially pleased that you identified fallacies employed amongst atheists as well. Far too often they seem to believe they are the intellectually superior&#8230; that&#039;s just not true.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MitchLeBlanc</title>
		<link>http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/bad-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-9997</link>
		<dc:creator>MitchLeBlanc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=806#comment-9997</guid>
		<description>Good work, I am especially pleased that you identified fallacies employed amongst atheists as well. Far too often they seem to believe they are the intellectually superior... that&#039;s just not true.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good work, I am especially pleased that you identified fallacies employed amongst atheists as well. Far too often they seem to believe they are the intellectually superior&#8230; that&#039;s just not true.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

