<?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: On Vacation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://40yearoldatheist.com/on-vacation/2009/09/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://40yearoldatheist.com/on-vacation/2009/09/</link>
	<description>Ramblings of a Middle Aged Guy Who Found Relief Through Non-Belief</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:08:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill M</title>
		<link>http://40yearoldatheist.com/on-vacation/2009/09/comment-page-1/#comment-885</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://40yearoldatheist.com/?p=673#comment-885</guid>
		<description>I think you&#039;ve done a fair job of representing the evidence supporting atheism. But as an atheist myself, I think there&#039;s much more you can explore.
For instance, what is the real conversation? Is it one of competing facts or is it really more emotionally driven? We would like to think that we first look at data and then come to conclusions, but largely, this is not so. What happens in many cases is we come to the party already convinced of something &#039;obvious&#039; and then sift through whatever is on offer and find supporting elements. &quot;She loves me.&quot; &quot;I&#039;m good at what I do.&quot; &quot;The Universe looks authored.&quot;
Some of the best examples of just how intractable our beliefs are can be found in psychology - things like blind-sight and phantom limbs. This is the interesting part of the subject for me. Not that I am right and someone else is wrong, but how is it that there are even two (or more) positions? After all, we do not argue about so many other things -- we all seem to pretty much agree on an overwhelming portion of how the world works.
And in this exploration, I am able to partly see my own biases and &#039;things I just know&#039; for what they are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you&#8217;ve done a fair job of representing the evidence supporting atheism. But as an atheist myself, I think there&#8217;s much more you can explore.<br />
For instance, what is the real conversation? Is it one of competing facts or is it really more emotionally driven? We would like to think that we first look at data and then come to conclusions, but largely, this is not so. What happens in many cases is we come to the party already convinced of something &#8216;obvious&#8217; and then sift through whatever is on offer and find supporting elements. &#8220;She loves me.&#8221; &#8220;I&#8217;m good at what I do.&#8221; &#8220;The Universe looks authored.&#8221;<br />
Some of the best examples of just how intractable our beliefs are can be found in psychology &#8211; things like blind-sight and phantom limbs. This is the interesting part of the subject for me. Not that I am right and someone else is wrong, but how is it that there are even two (or more) positions? After all, we do not argue about so many other things &#8212; we all seem to pretty much agree on an overwhelming portion of how the world works.<br />
And in this exploration, I am able to partly see my own biases and &#8216;things I just know&#8217; for what they are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

