<?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: Reasons for a Rapture</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/teamkenan/reasons-for-a-rapture/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/teamkenan/reasons-for-a-rapture/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:18:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lauren C.</title>
		<link>http://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/teamkenan/reasons-for-a-rapture/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>Lauren C.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:24:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://devilsdilemma.wordpress.com/?p=630#comment-53</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s true - and also, calling out Camping on his numerology and the basis of his and his followers&#039; beliefs requires one to reflect on his or her beliefs. If they believe in another form of religion - where is the proof that its assertions are true? If they believe in science - there are so many questions still left unanswered. At this point in our understanding of math and science, what really gives more legitimacy to the theoretical math that explains String Theory than the theoretical math that explains Camping&#039;s predictions. I can&#039;t seem to wrap my head around either of them because they both require some sort of faith!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s true &#8211; and also, calling out Camping on his numerology and the basis of his and his followers&#8217; beliefs requires one to reflect on his or her beliefs. If they believe in another form of religion &#8211; where is the proof that its assertions are true? If they believe in science &#8211; there are so many questions still left unanswered. At this point in our understanding of math and science, what really gives more legitimacy to the theoretical math that explains String Theory than the theoretical math that explains Camping&#8217;s predictions. I can&#8217;t seem to wrap my head around either of them because they both require some sort of faith!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noah Pickus</title>
		<link>http://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/teamkenan/reasons-for-a-rapture/#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Noah Pickus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 16:51:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://devilsdilemma.wordpress.com/?p=630#comment-52</guid>
		<description>Lauren: Emily Dickinson sure had that right. At the same time, we lie in a time when so few moderns seem willing to assert belief in anything that I suspect fuels the ridicule that&#039;s been directed against Camping and his followers - not just that numerology but that actual belief in their beliefs. I liked very much how you ended this post with Camping&#039;s PR guy&#039;s own call not to dis-believe but to be more temperate. Noah</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lauren: Emily Dickinson sure had that right. At the same time, we lie in a time when so few moderns seem willing to assert belief in anything that I suspect fuels the ridicule that&#8217;s been directed against Camping and his followers &#8211; not just that numerology but that actual belief in their beliefs. I liked very much how you ended this post with Camping&#8217;s PR guy&#8217;s own call not to dis-believe but to be more temperate. Noah</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>