<?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: Letters from a Skeptic</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:55:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Back Flipping Forward &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Followup: Letters from a Skeptic</title>
		<link>http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-3040</link>
		<dc:creator>Back Flipping Forward &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Followup: Letters from a Skeptic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:27:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/#comment-3040</guid>
		<description>[...] Buffy: But if the environment...on Letters from a Skeptic [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Buffy: But if the environment&#8230;on Letters from a Skeptic [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buffy</title>
		<link>http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-3039</link>
		<dc:creator>Buffy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:14:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/#comment-3039</guid>
		<description>But if the environment came first and then our desires, which were a response to our environment, doesn&#039;t that imply that we have a desire for God because God existed in the first place?

BTW it is a big leap from saying &#039;God Exists&#039; to saying &#039;Jesus died for our sins and the only way to God is to be saved by his Grace and take him as your saviour&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But if the environment came first and then our desires, which were a response to our environment, doesn&#8217;t that imply that we have a desire for God because God existed in the first place?</p>
<p>BTW it is a big leap from saying &#8216;God Exists&#8217; to saying &#8216;Jesus died for our sins and the only way to God is to be saved by his Grace and take him as your saviour&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Holmes</title>
		<link>http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-3035</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Holmes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/#comment-3035</guid>
		<description>No Poo, just some thinkin... sounds like a good read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No Poo, just some thinkin&#8230; sounds like a good read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IAMB</title>
		<link>http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-3030</link>
		<dc:creator>IAMB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/#comment-3030</guid>
		<description>My biggest beef is that he seems to think that everything important to humans is somehow there for humans... rather than the reality that we are simply adapted to use what&#039;s available. He&#039;s one of those guys that suffers from puddle thinking: &quot;Hey,&quot; says the puddle. &quot;Isn&#039;t it cool that this hole is so perfectly suited to me?&quot; The environment isn&#039;t suited to us... we&#039;re suited to it through adaptation.

Oh, and nature is a brute process of colliding physical properties. Big freakin&#039; deal.

Final note:
&lt;i&gt;We have sex drives, and behold, there is sex.&lt;/i&gt;

Maybe for some lucky bastards. The rest of us have to work for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My biggest beef is that he seems to think that everything important to humans is somehow there for humans&#8230; rather than the reality that we are simply adapted to use what&#8217;s available. He&#8217;s one of those guys that suffers from puddle thinking: &#8220;Hey,&#8221; says the puddle. &#8220;Isn&#8217;t it cool that this hole is so perfectly suited to me?&#8221; The environment isn&#8217;t suited to us&#8230; we&#8217;re suited to it through adaptation.</p>
<p>Oh, and nature is a brute process of colliding physical properties. Big freakin&#8217; deal.</p>
<p>Final note:<br />
<i>We have sex drives, and behold, there is sex.</i></p>
<p>Maybe for some lucky bastards. The rest of us have to work for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: techskeptic</title>
		<link>http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-3029</link>
		<dc:creator>techskeptic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:49:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/#comment-3029</guid>
		<description>some if it is right, but it doesnt lead to the rest of it. In fact, he has aprt of it completely backward. The right stuff for example:

&lt;i&gt;We humans instinctively assume that love is a reality, that it is the only ideal worth living for and dying for. But nature seems to be an indifferent, loveless, brute process of colliding chemicals&lt;/i&gt;

And then the bizzarre conclsion

&lt;i&gt;and so our ideals are reduced to reacting hormones.&lt;/i&gt;

The fact that life runs on a set of chemical reaction doesn&#039;t mean we arent self aware, in fact he acknowledges our self awareness. Does that make our feelings of love and anger any less real? Why should it be less real because the capability of it is the result of trillions of reactions? The occurrence of it is still due to experience of events outside of our bodies.

The other part that is totally backwards
&lt;i&gt;To illustrate, we hunger, and behold, there is food. We thirst, and behold, there is water. We have sex drives, and behold, there is sex&lt;/i&gt;

Thats 100% backwards. This presumption (and this is where I think this guy was never a skeptic) is that we came first and then the answer to our drives came along. That doesnt even make sense.

We don&#039;t hunger and then there is food. The symbiosis of our species (or any species) with other living things on the planet is how we exist. Hunger is definitely a hormonal response, in fact we know the exact hormones that cause it. 

&lt;i&gt;Either our environment is congruous with these attributes–it renders them intelligible and answers them–or it does not. &lt;/i&gt;

This is another proposition with a predestined answer. &lt;i&gt;of course&lt;/i&gt; our environment is congruous with our attributes! we have them &lt;i&gt;because of&lt;/i&gt; our environment! THere are shirmp that live in the waters of the arctic north that die in labs if the water gets too warm. There are coral and anemonae at tremendous pressures in the marinara trench (near puerto rico) that fall apart when you bring them to the surface. All of these critters are successful in the environments because they are products of those environments.

I dont think this guy was ever skeptical of god. Just religion. This entire essay (perhaps I will read this book), is an argument from incredulity. He can&#039;t believe that a sentient entity didnt make our needs met! We wouldn&#039;t be here if that didn&#039;t happen!

I can&#039;t beleive that something that weighs close to a million pounds can fly through the air, and yet 747 hurl themselves high over my head every day.

There is so much more wrong with this... with its backwards reasoning....but alas, I must get back to work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>some if it is right, but it doesnt lead to the rest of it. In fact, he has aprt of it completely backward. The right stuff for example:</p>
<p><i>We humans instinctively assume that love is a reality, that it is the only ideal worth living for and dying for. But nature seems to be an indifferent, loveless, brute process of colliding chemicals</i></p>
<p>And then the bizzarre conclsion</p>
<p><i>and so our ideals are reduced to reacting hormones.</i></p>
<p>The fact that life runs on a set of chemical reaction doesn&#8217;t mean we arent self aware, in fact he acknowledges our self awareness. Does that make our feelings of love and anger any less real? Why should it be less real because the capability of it is the result of trillions of reactions? The occurrence of it is still due to experience of events outside of our bodies.</p>
<p>The other part that is totally backwards<br />
<i>To illustrate, we hunger, and behold, there is food. We thirst, and behold, there is water. We have sex drives, and behold, there is sex</i></p>
<p>Thats 100% backwards. This presumption (and this is where I think this guy was never a skeptic) is that we came first and then the answer to our drives came along. That doesnt even make sense.</p>
<p>We don&#8217;t hunger and then there is food. The symbiosis of our species (or any species) with other living things on the planet is how we exist. Hunger is definitely a hormonal response, in fact we know the exact hormones that cause it. </p>
<p><i>Either our environment is congruous with these attributes–it renders them intelligible and answers them–or it does not. </i></p>
<p>This is another proposition with a predestined answer. <i>of course</i> our environment is congruous with our attributes! we have them <i>because of</i> our environment! THere are shirmp that live in the waters of the arctic north that die in labs if the water gets too warm. There are coral and anemonae at tremendous pressures in the marinara trench (near puerto rico) that fall apart when you bring them to the surface. All of these critters are successful in the environments because they are products of those environments.</p>
<p>I dont think this guy was ever skeptical of god. Just religion. This entire essay (perhaps I will read this book), is an argument from incredulity. He can&#8217;t believe that a sentient entity didnt make our needs met! We wouldn&#8217;t be here if that didn&#8217;t happen!</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t beleive that something that weighs close to a million pounds can fly through the air, and yet 747 hurl themselves high over my head every day.</p>
<p>There is so much more wrong with this&#8230; with its backwards reasoning&#8230;.but alas, I must get back to work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IAMB</title>
		<link>http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-3028</link>
		<dc:creator>IAMB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:17:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/10/22/letters-from-a-skeptic/#comment-3028</guid>
		<description>Yeah, you&#039;re gonna get the poo for this. Apologies in advance...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, you&#8217;re gonna get the poo for this. Apologies in advance&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

