<?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: Spong on Family Planning and God&#8217;s Will</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tildology.com/2008/08/07/spong-on-family-planning-and-gods-will/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tildology.com/2008/08/07/spong-on-family-planning-and-gods-will/</link>
	<description>Intellect vast and cool and unsympathetic (but mostly vast)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:08:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tildology.com/2008/08/07/spong-on-family-planning-and-gods-will/comment-page-1/#comment-284952</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tildology.com/?p=1543#comment-284952</guid>
		<description>&quot;I do think it’s possible that our consciousness continues in some form after death, and we just don’t yet have the means of detecting it. Maybe when we finally acquire that knowledge, and can perceive that consciousness, we’ll also be able to go there at will, rendering the discussion moot.&quot;
How is this any less silly than believing in God? You should be extra skeptical of this idea because it is something you &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; to be true. When people want things to be true, they tend to ignore the fact that truth is independent of our wants and desires.

Despite the fact that it may be proven true in the future, the current knowledge we have of the world does not give any credence to that idea. Instead, our knowledge suggests we believe such things because we tend to believe things we want to be true. To put it bluntly, while an afterlife is a possibility (as is, like, everything), it&#039;s almost certainly not true.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I do think it’s possible that our consciousness continues in some form after death, and we just don’t yet have the means of detecting it. Maybe when we finally acquire that knowledge, and can perceive that consciousness, we’ll also be able to go there at will, rendering the discussion moot.&#8221;<br />
How is this any less silly than believing in God? You should be extra skeptical of this idea because it is something you <em>want</em> to be true. When people want things to be true, they tend to ignore the fact that truth is independent of our wants and desires.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that it may be proven true in the future, the current knowledge we have of the world does not give any credence to that idea. Instead, our knowledge suggests we believe such things because we tend to believe things we want to be true. To put it bluntly, while an afterlife is a possibility (as is, like, everything), it&#8217;s almost certainly not true.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tild</title>
		<link>http://tildology.com/2008/08/07/spong-on-family-planning-and-gods-will/comment-page-1/#comment-250195</link>
		<dc:creator>Tild</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:16:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tildology.com/?p=1543#comment-250195</guid>
		<description>How diligent of you, to come back and edit a comment!   It&#039;s all good, I knew what you meant.  

Yeah, I&#039;ve never been fond of any of these word pairs.   The gnostic/agnostic pair especially is a pretty gnarly mouthful. 

I have a friend who likes to argue theology (well, he likes to argue everything, actually) who has mashed together a couple of these words to come up with a label that suits him much better.
He calls himself an &quot;antagonostic.&quot;          

:)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How diligent of you, to come back and edit a comment!   It&#8217;s all good, I knew what you meant.  </p>
<p>Yeah, I&#8217;ve never been fond of any of these word pairs.   The gnostic/agnostic pair especially is a pretty gnarly mouthful. </p>
<p>I have a friend who likes to argue theology (well, he likes to argue everything, actually) who has mashed together a couple of these words to come up with a label that suits him much better.<br />
He calls himself an &#8220;antagonostic.&#8221;          </p>
<p> <img src='http://tildology.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D Koski</title>
		<link>http://tildology.com/2008/08/07/spong-on-family-planning-and-gods-will/comment-page-1/#comment-250182</link>
		<dc:creator>D Koski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:54:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tildology.com/?p=1543#comment-250182</guid>
		<description>Correction
Atheistism = Atheism and Theistism = Theism
Bad editing, damn!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Correction<br />
Atheistism = Atheism and Theistism = Theism<br />
Bad editing, damn!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D Koski</title>
		<link>http://tildology.com/2008/08/07/spong-on-family-planning-and-gods-will/comment-page-1/#comment-250170</link>
		<dc:creator>D Koski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:37:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tildology.com/?p=1543#comment-250170</guid>
		<description>I can be a broken record stuck on this point, but I haven&#039;t seen it hashed out.
Theistism its opposite,  Atheistism
Usually it is phrased &quot;believes in God or an Atheist&quot; 
Generally, the term Agnostic crops up - pronounced AG-nostic
But opposites are Gnostic and Agnostic  So as a sidebar, why is the &quot;G&quot; silent in gnostic and  guttered  in Aggg-nostic?
In my very shallow research into Gnosticism, the Gospels of St Thomas come up.  These Gospels don&#039;t seem to have made it into the Bible.  Hmmm...
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/gospel-of-st-thomas.htm
So the argument is usually triangular, 1- true believer, 2- non-believer and 3- confused Agnostic (ripe for the picking).
How convenient that Gnosticism is lost in the dialog.  For the Theists that is.
I bet being called a Theist isn&#039;t all that enamoring either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can be a broken record stuck on this point, but I haven&#8217;t seen it hashed out.<br />
Theistism its opposite,  Atheistism<br />
Usually it is phrased &#8220;believes in God or an Atheist&#8221;<br />
Generally, the term Agnostic crops up &#8211; pronounced AG-nostic<br />
But opposites are Gnostic and Agnostic  So as a sidebar, why is the &#8220;G&#8221; silent in gnostic and  guttered  in Aggg-nostic?<br />
In my very shallow research into Gnosticism, the Gospels of St Thomas come up.  These Gospels don&#8217;t seem to have made it into the Bible.  Hmmm&#8230;<br />
<a href="http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/gospel-of-st-thomas.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/gospel-of-st-thomas.htm</a><br />
So the argument is usually triangular, 1- true believer, 2- non-believer and 3- confused Agnostic (ripe for the picking).<br />
How convenient that Gnosticism is lost in the dialog.  For the Theists that is.<br />
I bet being called a Theist isn&#8217;t all that enamoring either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NPR, beating up on atheist kids and selectively reporting on the economy &#171; The Mississippifarian</title>
		<link>http://tildology.com/2008/08/07/spong-on-family-planning-and-gods-will/comment-page-1/#comment-249934</link>
		<dc:creator>NPR, beating up on atheist kids and selectively reporting on the economy &#171; The Mississippifarian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tildology.com/?p=1543#comment-249934</guid>
		<description>[...] Except from Tild and Bishop Spong. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Except from Tild and Bishop Spong. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
