<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Atheism, Richard Dawkins, and “The God Delusion” (part 5 of 8): The Reliability of the Bible</title>
	<atom:link href="http://urclearning.org/2007/01/22/the-reliability-of-the-bible/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://urclearning.org/2007/01/22/the-reliability-of-the-bible/</link>
	<description>Reformed Sermons, Discussion Programs &#38; Lessons, with Audio</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:22:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://urclearning.org/2007/01/22/the-reliability-of-the-bible/#comment-21147</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:01:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.start.urclearning.org/2007/01/22/the-reliability-of-the-bible/#comment-21147</guid>
		<description>I find it interesting that you also have a complaint with Dawkins never using facts to back his views. I find it very interesting that he claims that science is the truth because it uses fact as proof. I find his work as just angry statements at the idea of God with no substance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it interesting that you also have a complaint with Dawkins never using facts to back his views. I find it very interesting that he claims that science is the truth because it uses fact as proof. I find his work as just angry statements at the idea of God with no substance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
