<?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: Hitch</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/hitch.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/hitch.html</link>
	<description>thoughts, questions, original art and content and links to stuff we think is of interest; a group blog dedicated to pretty much everything. by people you would like to meet at a party; proof of intelligent life on the planet; inhabited by Internet hunter gatherers in the pre-apocalyptic realm; a destination that offers constellations of stimulating links to popular (and not so popular) culture; a group blog dedicated to culture: art, design, music, food, architecture, science, travel, movies, books, typography, politics, etc.; inclusive of geezers!; a delightful mixture of orange words and pictures of well, the insides of a stuffed animal–delightful all the same; the social network I never thought I’d join.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:12:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark Hurty</title>
		<link>http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/hitch.html/comment-page-1#comment-150125</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Hurty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 06:04:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clusterflock.org/?p=10917#comment-150125</guid>
		<description>Daryl -- Obviously the intended humor in my comment about Hitchen&#039;s conversion has been lost in the extended conversation. Or, perhaps, it just wasn&#039;t funny. In either case, I apologize if I touched a nerve. I&#039;ll retreat now, not entirely certain that nobody is really in a position to say I&#039;m wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Daryl &#8212; Obviously the intended humor in my comment about Hitchen&#8217;s conversion has been lost in the extended conversation. Or, perhaps, it just wasn&#8217;t funny. In either case, I apologize if I touched a nerve. I&#8217;ll retreat now, not entirely certain that nobody is really in a position to say I&#8217;m wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daryl Scroggins</title>
		<link>http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/hitch.html/comment-page-1#comment-149207</link>
		<dc:creator>Daryl Scroggins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:08:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clusterflock.org/?p=10917#comment-149207</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Faith and reason are not parallel constructs.&lt;/i&gt;

Yes Mark, for Christians they are a matter of bait and switch: argue in a reasonable way until backed into a corner; then claim the authority of faith; and then slip back over into reason when the coast is clear. And note, too, the hyperbolic use of logicians&#039; jargon--as if the semblance of vast erudition will reinforce claims that otherwise depend upon  the marginality of all such efforts. What &lt;i&gt;really&lt;/i&gt; matters, for a Christian, is that private little experience in one&#039;s own heart, and the smug certainty that &quot;nobody is really in a position to say I&#039;m wrong about my own revelation.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Faith and reason are not parallel constructs.</i></p>
<p>Yes Mark, for Christians they are a matter of bait and switch: argue in a reasonable way until backed into a corner; then claim the authority of faith; and then slip back over into reason when the coast is clear. And note, too, the hyperbolic use of logicians&#8217; jargon&#8211;as if the semblance of vast erudition will reinforce claims that otherwise depend upon  the marginality of all such efforts. What <i>really</i> matters, for a Christian, is that private little experience in one&#8217;s own heart, and the smug certainty that &#8220;nobody is really in a position to say I&#8217;m wrong about my own revelation.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Hurty</title>
		<link>http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/hitch.html/comment-page-1#comment-148622</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Hurty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:22:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clusterflock.org/?p=10917#comment-148622</guid>
		<description>Faith and reason are not parallel constructs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Faith and reason are not parallel constructs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daryl Scroggins</title>
		<link>http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/hitch.html/comment-page-1#comment-148312</link>
		<dc:creator>Daryl Scroggins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:30:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clusterflock.org/?p=10917#comment-148312</guid>
		<description>Mark: Deron can speak for me anytime; he has a lovely way with words! And this issue is the very one that causes so many Christians to trot out the argument that &lt;i&gt;atheists are being dogmatic too!&lt;/i&gt;--which isn&#039;t even any kind of an answer to the charge of being dogmatic. The difference is: a Christian &lt;i&gt;must&lt;/i&gt; believe that his or her faith is unshakable--and this allows any number of questions to be asked, but always with the prior understanding that the answers &lt;i&gt;must&lt;/i&gt; conform with what was believed to begin with. Those who are lodged in this mode naturally see it as the only way of being, and thus also tend to see unbelievers as actually believers who don&#039;t believe--as opposed to people who don&#039;t accept the need to accept such limitations at the start.  An atheist, given compelling reasons to change his or her views, would; a Christian, given similar reasons for changing out of Christianity, wouldn&#039;t. So who is the more questioning of the two, and who is more aptly referred to as dogmatic?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark: Deron can speak for me anytime; he has a lovely way with words! And this issue is the very one that causes so many Christians to trot out the argument that <i>atheists are being dogmatic too!</i>&#8211;which isn&#8217;t even any kind of an answer to the charge of being dogmatic. The difference is: a Christian <i>must</i> believe that his or her faith is unshakable&#8211;and this allows any number of questions to be asked, but always with the prior understanding that the answers <i>must</i> conform with what was believed to begin with. Those who are lodged in this mode naturally see it as the only way of being, and thus also tend to see unbelievers as actually believers who don&#8217;t believe&#8211;as opposed to people who don&#8217;t accept the need to accept such limitations at the start.  An atheist, given compelling reasons to change his or her views, would; a Christian, given similar reasons for changing out of Christianity, wouldn&#8217;t. So who is the more questioning of the two, and who is more aptly referred to as dogmatic?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Deron Bauman</title>
		<link>http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/hitch.html/comment-page-1#comment-148214</link>
		<dc:creator>Deron Bauman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:50:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clusterflock.org/?p=10917#comment-148214</guid>
		<description>I won&#039;t speak for Daryl, Mark. My sense of it is the church his transformation was based on would not exist if it were presumed Paul / Saul had a questioning mind after the conversion. That&#039;s not the way he presents it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I won&#8217;t speak for Daryl, Mark. My sense of it is the church his transformation was based on would not exist if it were presumed Paul / Saul had a questioning mind after the conversion. That&#8217;s not the way he presents it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Hurty</title>
		<link>http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/hitch.html/comment-page-1#comment-148197</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Hurty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:43:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clusterflock.org/?p=10917#comment-148197</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;He was born again in a way that was proof against his formerly questioning mind.&lt;/em&gt; Are you saying that Paul no longer had a questioning mind after being born again? Or that his doubt was replaced by faith? Does it follow that a person of faith has no questions?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>He was born again in a way that was proof against his formerly questioning mind.</em> Are you saying that Paul no longer had a questioning mind after being born again? Or that his doubt was replaced by faith? Does it follow that a person of faith has no questions?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daryl Scroggins</title>
		<link>http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/hitch.html/comment-page-1#comment-148135</link>
		<dc:creator>Daryl Scroggins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:18:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clusterflock.org/?p=10917#comment-148135</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Saul’s experience on the road to Damascus was not a deathbed conversion, though&lt;/i&gt;.  Indeed. He was born again in a way that was proof against his formerly questioning mind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Saul’s experience on the road to Damascus was not a deathbed conversion, though</i>.  Indeed. He was born again in a way that was proof against his formerly questioning mind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Hurty</title>
		<link>http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/hitch.html/comment-page-1#comment-148101</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Hurty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:58:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clusterflock.org/?p=10917#comment-148101</guid>
		<description>@Daryl : I agree with you about the nature of deathbed conversion, and about the propensity of christian apologists to recall only those conversions that are useful to their position.

Saul&#039;s experience on the road to Damascus was not a deathbed conversion, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Daryl : I agree with you about the nature of deathbed conversion, and about the propensity of christian apologists to recall only those conversions that are useful to their position.</p>
<p>Saul&#8217;s experience on the road to Damascus was not a deathbed conversion, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sc</title>
		<link>http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/hitch.html/comment-page-1#comment-148076</link>
		<dc:creator>sc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:38:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clusterflock.org/?p=10917#comment-148076</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s not just that he says “If you gave Falwell an enema, he would have been buried in a matchbox.&quot; It&#039;s that he says it to Sean Hannity, on FOX, while arguing with Ralph Reed (remind me again why Reed isn&#039;t in jail) the day after Fallwell&#039;s death. He just casually mumbles it, half afterthought, half last word.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not just that he says “If you gave Falwell an enema, he would have been buried in a matchbox.&#8221; It&#8217;s that he says it to Sean Hannity, on FOX, while arguing with Ralph Reed (remind me again why Reed isn&#8217;t in jail) the day after Fallwell&#8217;s death. He just casually mumbles it, half afterthought, half last word.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: India</title>
		<link>http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/hitch.html/comment-page-1#comment-147981</link>
		<dc:creator>India</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:20:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clusterflock.org/?p=10917#comment-147981</guid>
		<description>Yes, those are the five seconds I mean. A friend asserts that it&#039;s the second best thing ever broadcast on television. The first best thing is, arguably, &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtube.com/watch?v=EBUiPs1PxKo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark E. Smith reading football scores&lt;/a&gt;. Should you prefer a non–a cappella version, &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtube.com/watch?v=zvqdvFh_oZE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;that&#039;s here&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, those are the five seconds I mean. A friend asserts that it&#8217;s the second best thing ever broadcast on television. The first best thing is, arguably, <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=EBUiPs1PxKo" rel="nofollow">Mark E. Smith reading football scores</a>. Should you prefer a non–a cappella version, <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=zvqdvFh_oZE" rel="nofollow">that&#8217;s here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 2.766 seconds -->
