<?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 for The Weinerworks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theweinerworks.com/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theweinerworks.com</link>
	<description>The inaccrochable thoughts of Zach Weinersmith</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:32:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Carl Sagan Quote by Me</title>
		<link>http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32512</link>
		<dc:creator>Me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:32:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32512</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yours is one of the forms of agnosticism, which makes you agnostic.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yours is one of the forms of agnosticism, which makes you agnostic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Carl Sagan Quote by Me</title>
		<link>http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32511</link>
		<dc:creator>Me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:30:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32511</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am agnostic and my understanding is that there are two schools of spiritual agnosticism:

1. If God or a god (or whatever supreme architect/s one chooses to refer to) exists, they he/she/it is far beyond human comprehension. For that reason, humans are not required to concern ourselves with the question or to understand. It is too far beyond us.

2. There is no way to prove or to disprove the existence of God or gods, therefore we cannot know and it is a waste of time and effort concerning ourselves with the question or attaching ourselves to theologies and dogmas. If there is actually a supreme being out there, he/she/it is just fine with our lack of interest and faith.

I am an agnostic of the second school.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am agnostic and my understanding is that there are two schools of spiritual agnosticism:</p>
<p>1. If God or a god (or whatever supreme architect/s one chooses to refer to) exists, they he/she/it is far beyond human comprehension. For that reason, humans are not required to concern ourselves with the question or to understand. It is too far beyond us.</p>
<p>2. There is no way to prove or to disprove the existence of God or gods, therefore we cannot know and it is a waste of time and effort concerning ourselves with the question or attaching ourselves to theologies and dogmas. If there is actually a supreme being out there, he/she/it is just fine with our lack of interest and faith.</p>
<p>I am an agnostic of the second school.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Carl Sagan Quote by Me</title>
		<link>http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32509</link>
		<dc:creator>Me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:17:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What&#039;s with all the debate over the meanings of atheist and agnostic. You&#039;re educated people. Don&#039;t you know the definitions are in dictionaries and that despite the attitudes of the less educated among us, words are not really open to whatever we want a word to mean? Is this what contemporary education is allowing? If so, how disappointing and disconcerting!

atheist
n. one who believes that God does not exist 

agnostic
n. one who is unsure whether or not God exists; person who refuses to declare belief in the existence or nonexistence of God; skeptic, person who is doubting or suspicious about something]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s with all the debate over the meanings of atheist and agnostic. You&#8217;re educated people. Don&#8217;t you know the definitions are in dictionaries and that despite the attitudes of the less educated among us, words are not really open to whatever we want a word to mean? Is this what contemporary education is allowing? If so, how disappointing and disconcerting!</p>
<p>atheist<br />
n. one who believes that God does not exist </p>
<p>agnostic<br />
n. one who is unsure whether or not God exists; person who refuses to declare belief in the existence or nonexistence of God; skeptic, person who is doubting or suspicious about something</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Carl Sagan Quote by Me</title>
		<link>http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32508</link>
		<dc:creator>Me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:09:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32508</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are ignoring the spiritual philosophies embraced by others that do not suit you and are making declarative statements about them. 

theist
n. one who believes in one or more gods, deist 

atheist
n. one who believes that God does not exist 

deist
n. person who believes in the existence of a supreme being 

Deism  is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an intelligent creator. According to deists, the creator never intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or &quot;the Supreme Architect&quot;) does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

agnostic
n. one who is unsure whether or not God exists; person who refuses to declare belief in the existence or nonexistence of God; skeptic, person who is doubting or suspicious about something.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are ignoring the spiritual philosophies embraced by others that do not suit you and are making declarative statements about them. </p>
<p>theist<br />
n. one who believes in one or more gods, deist </p>
<p>atheist<br />
n. one who believes that God does not exist </p>
<p>deist<br />
n. person who believes in the existence of a supreme being </p>
<p>Deism  is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an intelligent creator. According to deists, the creator never intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or &#8220;the Supreme Architect&#8221;) does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.</p>
<p>agnostic<br />
n. one who is unsure whether or not God exists; person who refuses to declare belief in the existence or nonexistence of God; skeptic, person who is doubting or suspicious about something.</p>
<p>Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Carl Sagan Quote by Me</title>
		<link>http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32507</link>
		<dc:creator>Me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Matthew is ignoring the spiritual philosophies embraced by others that do not suit him.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matthew is ignoring the spiritual philosophies embraced by others that do not suit him.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Carl Sagan Quote by Me</title>
		<link>http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32506</link>
		<dc:creator>Me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:56:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That isn&#039;t true. 
From the dictionary:
atheist
n. one who believes that God does not exist 

An atheist is one who believes there is no god. Because you want the term to mean something else does not make it so.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That isn&#8217;t true.<br />
From the dictionary:<br />
atheist<br />
n. one who believes that God does not exist </p>
<p>An atheist is one who believes there is no god. Because you want the term to mean something else does not make it so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Carl Sagan Quote by Me</title>
		<link>http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32505</link>
		<dc:creator>Me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:53:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=340#comment-32505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That isn&#039;t true. 
From the dictionary:
atheist
n. one who believes that God does not exist 

An atheist is one who believes there is no god. Because you want the term to mean something else does not make it so.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That isn&#8217;t true.<br />
From the dictionary:<br />
atheist<br />
n. one who believes that God does not exist </p>
<p>An atheist is one who believes there is no god. Because you want the term to mean something else does not make it so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hunter S Thompson on Experts by foo</title>
		<link>http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=1675#comment-31896</link>
		<dc:creator>foo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:41:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=1675#comment-31896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Being an expert is merely being more knowledgeable than most in a given field. It is not the same as knowing everything in this matter.

So when one is truly an expert in their field, they have a sense of its depth, its complexities, how it can be surprising at times, and more importantly, they feel more than most the limits of their own knowledge.

Add to this the fact that, quite often, you have to be some kind of geek to become a real expert: dedicated more than is reasonable to your subject, even obsessed with being exact about it.

These are some of the other reasons why actual experts are less likely to make bets, besides a supposed desire to protect their &quot;high-priced reputation&quot;!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Being an expert is merely being more knowledgeable than most in a given field. It is not the same as knowing everything in this matter.</p>
<p>So when one is truly an expert in their field, they have a sense of its depth, its complexities, how it can be surprising at times, and more importantly, they feel more than most the limits of their own knowledge.</p>
<p>Add to this the fact that, quite often, you have to be some kind of geek to become a real expert: dedicated more than is reasonable to your subject, even obsessed with being exact about it.</p>
<p>These are some of the other reasons why actual experts are less likely to make bets, besides a supposed desire to protect their &#8220;high-priced reputation&#8221;!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on On Soda and Bad Behavior by Let Slip the Dice of War! &#171; Offlogic&#8217;s Weblog</title>
		<link>http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=1656#comment-31500</link>
		<dc:creator>Let Slip the Dice of War! &#171; Offlogic&#8217;s Weblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:17:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=1656#comment-31500</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] bagels, but he can&#8217;t help crunching the numbers. This gets ZachWeiner thinking about the personal economics of morality.  All I know is that we used to head to the executive floor to steal those &#8216;honor [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] bagels, but he can&#8217;t help crunching the numbers. This gets ZachWeiner thinking about the personal economics of morality.  All I know is that we used to head to the executive floor to steal those &#8216;honor [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Responding to Creationists by Reki</title>
		<link>http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=1658#comment-31151</link>
		<dc:creator>Reki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:17:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=1658#comment-31151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I also think it is, albeit being very constructive, an inherently flawed answer. The reason is that it&#039;s just much to precise and long, and to someone who has no idea how evolution works, it sounds like &quot;bacteria not turning into people in 20 years&quot; is a proof against evolution, and you just try to find reasons why evolution doesn&#039;t work as expected in this case. What they need to understand, however, is that &quot;bacteria not turning into people in 20 years&quot; is EXACTLY WHAT WAS EXPECTED by the theory of evolution.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also think it is, albeit being very constructive, an inherently flawed answer. The reason is that it&#8217;s just much to precise and long, and to someone who has no idea how evolution works, it sounds like &#8220;bacteria not turning into people in 20 years&#8221; is a proof against evolution, and you just try to find reasons why evolution doesn&#8217;t work as expected in this case. What they need to understand, however, is that &#8220;bacteria not turning into people in 20 years&#8221; is EXACTLY WHAT WAS EXPECTED by the theory of evolution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
