<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with athiest</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/athiest</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'athiest' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:31:50 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:31:50 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Youtube logician explains why God must exist</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/80517/Youtube%2Dlogician%2Dexplains%2Dwhy%2DGod%2Dmust%2Dexist</link>
		<description> Apparently there&apos;s at least a 51% chance of God&apos;s existence. It starts out 50/50, like with pets. You have, say, either a dog or a cat. It&apos;s a 50/50 chance that it&apos;s one or the other, just like it&apos;s 50/50 that there&apos;s a God or not. Well, we exist. You exist. The earth exists. That nudges it up to 51%. If I understand this&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi8q9jeyfeo&amp;feature=channel&quot;&gt; youtube gentleman&lt;/a&gt;. Hilarious exercise in smug delivery of ironclad logic.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2009:site.80517</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:31:50 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>athiest</category>
		<category>logic</category>
		<category>youtube</category>
		<dc:creator>stupidsexyFlanders</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Battleground God</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/26715/Battleground%2DGod</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm"&gt;Are you hypocritical about God?&lt;/a&gt; And don&apos;t cheat.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.26715</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2003 03:40:54 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>atheisim</category>
		<category>athiest</category>
		<category>battleground</category>
		<category>doublepost</category>
		<dc:creator>PenDevil</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/21190/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleView.asp?accessible=yes&amp;amp;P_Article=11532"&gt;Religion!  What Is It Good For?&lt;/a&gt; Absolutely nothing?  Perhaps not. &lt;b&gt;Michael Prowse&lt;/b&gt;, a lifelong atheist (and Financial Times columnist even!) had this to say in an article for &lt;b&gt;Prospect&lt;/b&gt;:&lt;br&gt; &lt;small&gt;&quot;Having accepted that meanings are always contestable, I have found myself more able to focus on what religious people do, and less on what they say. Are they &quot;better&quot; people than the irreligious? Of course not. Are they better people than they would be were they not religious? Probably, and this is what counts for me.&quot;&lt;/small&gt;.&lt;br&gt; Meanwhile, another atheist,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15798&quot;&gt;Jared Diamond&lt;/a&gt;, writing (brilliantly, as the author of &lt;b&gt;Guns, Germs and Steel&lt;/b&gt; always does) in the current &lt;b&gt;New York Review of Books&lt;/b&gt;, addresses religion in a (let us say) more &lt;i&gt;scientific&lt;/i&gt; way and, though more sceptical, leaves a similar question mark hanging.  So, in a nutshell: can there be something in (or about) religion for atheists too?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.21190</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:32:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>athiesm</category>
		<category>athiest</category>
		<category>christianity</category>
		<category>marriage</category>
		<category>religion</category>
		<category>science</category>
		<dc:creator>MiguelCardoso</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


