<?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: The Scientific Embrace of Atheism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:13:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: cek pulsa esia</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-2324267</link>
		<dc:creator>cek pulsa esia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:36:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-2324267</guid>
		<description>I just like the valuable information you supply to your articles. I will bookmark your blog and test once more here frequently. I&#039;m rather sure I will be informed plenty of new stuff proper here! Best of luck for the next!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just like the valuable information you supply to your articles. I will bookmark your blog and test once more here frequently. I&#8217;m rather sure I will be informed plenty of new stuff proper here! Best of luck for the next!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Empower Network Insider View, Full Detail &#124; Empower Network Presentation &#124; Can The Empower Network End Discrimination? &#124; Empower Network Review - Is It Total Bullshit? &#124; Empower Network Review - Is It Total Bullshit? &#124; Empower Network Review - Is It Total</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-1814634</link>
		<dc:creator>Empower Network Insider View, Full Detail &#124; Empower Network Presentation &#124; Can The Empower Network End Discrimination? &#124; Empower Network Review - Is It Total Bullshit? &#124; Empower Network Review - Is It Total Bullshit? &#124; Empower Network Review - Is It Total</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:59:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-1814634</guid>
		<description>Great paintings! This is the type of information that are supposed to be shared around the web. Shame on Google for no longer positioning this post higher! Come on over and consult with my web site . Thank you =)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great paintings! This is the type of information that are supposed to be shared around the web. Shame on Google for no longer positioning this post higher! Come on over and consult with my web site . Thank you =)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: well...</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-1321673</link>
		<dc:creator>well...</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Oct 2011 23:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-1321673</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Well......&lt;/strong&gt;

This is my Excerpt...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Well&#8230;&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This is my Excerpt&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: intellectual Christian</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-1176897</link>
		<dc:creator>intellectual Christian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-1176897</guid>
		<description>In your reply to this article, you said that if we believe the Bible is a more valuable source of information than quantum mechanics, we should disregard products made using quantum mechanics as valuable. While I agree quantum mechanics certainly has greatly increased our understanding of the universe, I will GLADLY refrain from using any drugs developed after 1980 unless I know they are trustworthy. Why? Most of them have already been proven to be more harmful to us than simply getting over disease the old-fashioned way. Many new drugs have been linked to the increase of disease and even new problems that weren&#039;t around 30 years ago.

Autism and other hereditary problems have also seen a huge increase in recent years. Maybe there&#039;s a reason for that too.....

As for computers, I would never doubt their usefulness. But it has been proven that spending too much time around computers is degenerative. The electromagnetic energy given off by cell phones and headphones can be harmful to us as well, and since I always get headaches from listening to earbuds, frankly I believe that.

I don&#039;t see advancements in technology as a result of evolution or an increase in intelligence. Rather, I see it as inevitable knowledge that has been used as an excuse for us to allow ourselves to become less intelligent. Considering that people find it hard to live without cell phones now, while 20 years ago, cell phones were science fiction, I feel it is safe to say we have become unhealthily dependent on technology.

Why do I see it that way? Consider that everything we know about quantum mechanics and pretty much every other scientific field comes from the natural universe. A universe which was already around when man first appeared. Both the Bible and evolution agree on that. So, theoretically at least, we should be able to say that the knowledge required to make this universe also already existed at the time of its beginning as well. Whether a higher intelligence created us or not, that has to be so.

It simply took us this long to discover these things about our universe. And, since man is creative, we have been able to develop new technologies from the knowledge we discover in nature. However, this is not proof of evolution, because this knowledge was already around; it simply wasn&#039;t discovered yet. Darwin&#039;s &quot;black box&quot; didn&#039;t become a galaxy of information when we first looked inside the cell. It already was a galaxy of information when man first appeared. Nothing has changed in that regard.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In your reply to this article, you said that if we believe the Bible is a more valuable source of information than quantum mechanics, we should disregard products made using quantum mechanics as valuable. While I agree quantum mechanics certainly has greatly increased our understanding of the universe, I will GLADLY refrain from using any drugs developed after 1980 unless I know they are trustworthy. Why? Most of them have already been proven to be more harmful to us than simply getting over disease the old-fashioned way. Many new drugs have been linked to the increase of disease and even new problems that weren&#8217;t around 30 years ago.</p>
<p>Autism and other hereditary problems have also seen a huge increase in recent years. Maybe there&#8217;s a reason for that too&#8230;..</p>
<p>As for computers, I would never doubt their usefulness. But it has been proven that spending too much time around computers is degenerative. The electromagnetic energy given off by cell phones and headphones can be harmful to us as well, and since I always get headaches from listening to earbuds, frankly I believe that.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see advancements in technology as a result of evolution or an increase in intelligence. Rather, I see it as inevitable knowledge that has been used as an excuse for us to allow ourselves to become less intelligent. Considering that people find it hard to live without cell phones now, while 20 years ago, cell phones were science fiction, I feel it is safe to say we have become unhealthily dependent on technology.</p>
<p>Why do I see it that way? Consider that everything we know about quantum mechanics and pretty much every other scientific field comes from the natural universe. A universe which was already around when man first appeared. Both the Bible and evolution agree on that. So, theoretically at least, we should be able to say that the knowledge required to make this universe also already existed at the time of its beginning as well. Whether a higher intelligence created us or not, that has to be so.</p>
<p>It simply took us this long to discover these things about our universe. And, since man is creative, we have been able to develop new technologies from the knowledge we discover in nature. However, this is not proof of evolution, because this knowledge was already around; it simply wasn&#8217;t discovered yet. Darwin&#8217;s &#8220;black box&#8221; didn&#8217;t become a galaxy of information when we first looked inside the cell. It already was a galaxy of information when man first appeared. Nothing has changed in that regard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Synanyms embrace &#124; Yourcroatia</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-1073907</link>
		<dc:creator>Synanyms embrace &#124; Yourcroatia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-1073907</guid>
		<description>[...] Pajamas Media &#187; The Scientific Embrace of AtheismQuestions and their answers follow one another, but in the end Stein says nothing. There is no absurdity Dawkins is not prepared to embrace so long as he can avoid a transcendental inference.   Posted in Uncategorized &#124; Comments Off [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Pajamas Media &#187; The Scientific Embrace of AtheismQuestions and their answers follow one another, but in the end Stein says nothing. There is no absurdity Dawkins is not prepared to embrace so long as he can avoid a transcendental inference.   Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eugene Shubert</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-391541</link>
		<dc:creator>Eugene Shubert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:01:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-391541</guid>
		<description>#42. The theory of devolution (a creationist theory) is both a tweak and a refinement of standard evolutionary theory and makes many falsifiable predictions. 

For example, the possibility of chimpanzees and gorillas taking over the planet and enslaving humans is consistent with the modern evolutionary synthesis. That evolutionary scenario, with its obvious dependence on the evolutionists&#039; mindset, was the basis for all the planet of the ape movies. But anything like those events would falsify the theory of devolution.

All laughter aside, the simplest way to falsify the theory of devolution, if it were possible, is to find mutants of Escherichia coli that are unquestionably healthier than their ancestral strains.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#42. The theory of devolution (a creationist theory) is both a tweak and a refinement of standard evolutionary theory and makes many falsifiable predictions. </p>
<p>For example, the possibility of chimpanzees and gorillas taking over the planet and enslaving humans is consistent with the modern evolutionary synthesis. That evolutionary scenario, with its obvious dependence on the evolutionists&#8217; mindset, was the basis for all the planet of the ape movies. But anything like those events would falsify the theory of devolution.</p>
<p>All laughter aside, the simplest way to falsify the theory of devolution, if it were possible, is to find mutants of Escherichia coli that are unquestionably healthier than their ancestral strains.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: manbooks</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-268057</link>
		<dc:creator>manbooks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 04:40:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-268057</guid>
		<description>I believe Evolution is a fact: adaptation within a species (micro-evolution) based on environmental causes can easily be demonstrated by the scientific evidence. What most certainly is NOT a fact is that evolution could POSSIBLY explain the origen of life. There is NO evidence for cross species evolution (macro-evolution). As Dr. Berlinski points out, there are simply too many steps needed to turn, say, a bird into a cat. There are no intermediary species. In fact, the fossil record shows that most of life came to be within a very short period of time (Cambrian explosion). 

As far as faith is concerned, is it really believing something for which there are no facts? Only a fool would do this. Science can not answer the question of the existence or nature of a Divine Being, but it can and does point to the most reasonable explanation for the origen of species: Intellegent Design.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe Evolution is a fact: adaptation within a species (micro-evolution) based on environmental causes can easily be demonstrated by the scientific evidence. What most certainly is NOT a fact is that evolution could POSSIBLY explain the origen of life. There is NO evidence for cross species evolution (macro-evolution). As Dr. Berlinski points out, there are simply too many steps needed to turn, say, a bird into a cat. There are no intermediary species. In fact, the fossil record shows that most of life came to be within a very short period of time (Cambrian explosion). </p>
<p>As far as faith is concerned, is it really believing something for which there are no facts? Only a fool would do this. Science can not answer the question of the existence or nature of a Divine Being, but it can and does point to the most reasonable explanation for the origen of species: Intellegent Design.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brizzo</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-179927</link>
		<dc:creator>brizzo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:02:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-179927</guid>
		<description>I find it truly sad that people refuse to see the amazing inhuman intricacies of creation. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Almighty God is the ultimate designer &amp; creator of this world. Because we humans can only use a fraction of our brain and because we exist in this very strict environment of time, we cannot possibly comprehend the concept of no beginning and no end. How can we possibly fathom a space where God always was, is and will be? Or the micro-quantum mechanics God used to create life.

How can we definitively know there is a God? He has written it in his creation. This world is so intricately put together and so much depends on the most miniscule of parts, that&#039;s how we can know for sure. It is incredible to me that anyone could be so arrogant as to leave God out of creation. But I understand that to admit there might be a God is to put a person in subjegation to the laws dictated by that God. Boy, those two most important commands are really horrible aren&#039;t they? To love God and to love your neighbor be they friend or foe. Better to argue there is no God and to try and discredit him with the science He created.

I will continue to live my life as if there is a God and be relieved to find out there isn&#039;t one, than to live my life as if there isn&#039;t a God to find out in horror that there is.

In my mind, science proves there is a God with a magnificient creativity and love.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it truly sad that people refuse to see the amazing inhuman intricacies of creation. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Almighty God is the ultimate designer &amp; creator of this world. Because we humans can only use a fraction of our brain and because we exist in this very strict environment of time, we cannot possibly comprehend the concept of no beginning and no end. How can we possibly fathom a space where God always was, is and will be? Or the micro-quantum mechanics God used to create life.</p>
<p>How can we definitively know there is a God? He has written it in his creation. This world is so intricately put together and so much depends on the most miniscule of parts, that&#8217;s how we can know for sure. It is incredible to me that anyone could be so arrogant as to leave God out of creation. But I understand that to admit there might be a God is to put a person in subjegation to the laws dictated by that God. Boy, those two most important commands are really horrible aren&#8217;t they? To love God and to love your neighbor be they friend or foe. Better to argue there is no God and to try and discredit him with the science He created.</p>
<p>I will continue to live my life as if there is a God and be relieved to find out there isn&#8217;t one, than to live my life as if there isn&#8217;t a God to find out in horror that there is.</p>
<p>In my mind, science proves there is a God with a magnificient creativity and love.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jrodmc</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-176512</link>
		<dc:creator>jrodmc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:53:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-176512</guid>
		<description>Why are so many of the atheists so angry?  They have no answers, no solutions (since their are none), their theory leads to nihilism and a realm of hate so unattractive that it makes me wonder why scientism would appear attractive to anyone.  Highly-evolved, superior taste buds, no doubt.
Dawkins, Dennet, Harris; these people write and talk like they have cornered the market on arrogance and overly verbose irritability.  Funny, how long would any of these supergeniuses last in a completely Darwinian world?  As Dawkins intimates, he obviously would be one of the easier targets for a facist regime to deal with.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why are so many of the atheists so angry?  They have no answers, no solutions (since their are none), their theory leads to nihilism and a realm of hate so unattractive that it makes me wonder why scientism would appear attractive to anyone.  Highly-evolved, superior taste buds, no doubt.<br />
Dawkins, Dennet, Harris; these people write and talk like they have cornered the market on arrogance and overly verbose irritability.  Funny, how long would any of these supergeniuses last in a completely Darwinian world?  As Dawkins intimates, he obviously would be one of the easier targets for a facist regime to deal with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The wedge undermines Christianity &#171; Open Parachute</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-175932</link>
		<dc:creator>The wedge undermines Christianity &#171; Open Parachute</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:01:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/#comment-175932</guid>
		<description>[...] during a recent TV interview that “science leads to killing people.” David Berlinski in The Scientific Embrace of Atheism also attacks science in a manner John Derbyshire shows to be ridiculous (see Getting It Wrong about [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] during a recent TV interview that “science leads to killing people.” David Berlinski in The Scientific Embrace of Atheism also attacks science in a manner John Derbyshire shows to be ridiculous (see Getting It Wrong about [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

