<?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: Richard Dawkins&#8217; Diary</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.deeshaa.org/2007/06/06/richard-dawkins-diary/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.deeshaa.org/2007/06/06/richard-dawkins-diary/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:33:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Vasu</title>
		<link>http://www.deeshaa.org/2007/06/06/richard-dawkins-diary/comment-page-1/#comment-105693</link>
		<dc:creator>Vasu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:14:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deeshaa.org/2007/06/06/richard-dawkins-diary/#comment-105693</guid>
		<description>I have read most of the works of Dawkins from the selfish gene till the God delusion. But I somtimes wonder why Dawkins does not speak about the eartern philosophical traditions in light of his darwinian thinking and he focusses mainly on the abrahamic monotheistic religions. Darwin is too intelligent and informed to be ignorant of philosophical systems like buddhism and sankhya. He just provides lip service to these systems and dismisses them as ethical and philosphical systems  and not as religions. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have read most of the works of Dawkins from the selfish gene till the God delusion. But I somtimes wonder why Dawkins does not speak about the eartern philosophical traditions in light of his darwinian thinking and he focusses mainly on the abrahamic monotheistic religions. Darwin is too intelligent and informed to be ignorant of philosophical systems like buddhism and sankhya. He just provides lip service to these systems and dismisses them as ethical and philosphical systems  and not as religions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: michael krahn</title>
		<link>http://www.deeshaa.org/2007/06/06/richard-dawkins-diary/comment-page-1/#comment-102536</link>
		<dc:creator>michael krahn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2007 01:54:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deeshaa.org/2007/06/06/richard-dawkins-diary/#comment-102536</guid>
		<description>Hey,

I&#039;m a Christian who is working on a series on Dawkins&#039; book &quot;The God Delusion&quot; at my blog at:

http://michaelkrahn.wordpress.com/richard-dawkins/

There&#039;s already a good discussion underway.  Join in!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m a Christian who is working on a series on Dawkins&#8217; book &#8220;The God Delusion&#8221; at my blog at:</p>
<p><a href="http://michaelkrahn.wordpress.com/richard-dawkins/" rel="nofollow">http://michaelkrahn.wordpress.com/richard-dawkins/</a></p>
<p>There&#8217;s already a good discussion underway.  Join in!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Soniya Gadgil-Sharma</title>
		<link>http://www.deeshaa.org/2007/06/06/richard-dawkins-diary/comment-page-1/#comment-102426</link>
		<dc:creator>Soniya Gadgil-Sharma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:36:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deeshaa.org/2007/06/06/richard-dawkins-diary/#comment-102426</guid>
		<description>I profoundly respect Richard Dawkins, and I found the recent Time magazine piece on him an embarrassment. They chose Michael Behe, (the cretin, oops creationist!) to write about him! What were they thinking? He even says something to the effect of &quot;whatever the validity of his ideas&quot; in the article that&#039;s supposed to be praising Dawkins. Time has degenerated into a low-lying conservative rag while posing to be a progressive news source. It&#039;s definitely not worth the paper its printed on. That&#039;s probably why Dawkins wondered why he was chosen. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I profoundly respect Richard Dawkins, and I found the recent Time magazine piece on him an embarrassment. They chose Michael Behe, (the cretin, oops creationist!) to write about him! What were they thinking? He even says something to the effect of &#8220;whatever the validity of his ideas&#8221; in the article that&#8217;s supposed to be praising Dawkins. Time has degenerated into a low-lying conservative rag while posing to be a progressive news source. It&#8217;s definitely not worth the paper its printed on. That&#8217;s probably why Dawkins wondered why he was chosen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

