<?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/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Definitely a God&#8221; poster tops UK ad complaints</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/05/26/definitely-a-god-poster-tops-uk-ad-complaints/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/05/26/definitely-a-god-poster-tops-uk-ad-complaints/</link>
	<description>Religion, faith and ethics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 14:22:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anwyll</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/05/26/definitely-a-god-poster-tops-uk-ad-complaints/comment-page-1/#comment-24342</link>
		<dc:creator>Anwyll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 04:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=13564#comment-24342</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t see how you can justify one advert as offensive and the other not. As an atheist I don&#039;t agree with the Christian Party&#039;s advert but I&#039;m not offended. I thought it was ridiculous for people to get upset about the posters from the Humanists and try and have them shut down.

Just shows some atheists are as insular and hypocritical as some religious people.

I&#039;d be more curious if the advert is too similar in style, layout and design to constitute some kind of copyright infringement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t see how you can justify one advert as offensive and the other not. As an atheist I don&#8217;t agree with the Christian Party&#8217;s advert but I&#8217;m not offended. I thought it was ridiculous for people to get upset about the posters from the Humanists and try and have them shut down.</p>
<p>Just shows some atheists are as insular and hypocritical as some religious people.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d be more curious if the advert is too similar in style, layout and design to constitute some kind of copyright infringement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kubush</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/05/26/definitely-a-god-poster-tops-uk-ad-complaints/comment-page-1/#comment-24341</link>
		<dc:creator>Kubush</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 03:51:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=13564#comment-24341</guid>
		<description>Freedom of speech!

That being said, asserting that there definitely is a god and that it is the Christian god in particular is illogical and bizarre. At least the atheist sign qualified their message with &quot;probably.&quot; The godly advert is offensive to the human intellect but our freedoms give even the stupid the ability to put out an irrational message.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Freedom of speech!</p>
<p>That being said, asserting that there definitely is a god and that it is the Christian god in particular is illogical and bizarre. At least the atheist sign qualified their message with &#8220;probably.&#8221; The godly advert is offensive to the human intellect but our freedoms give even the stupid the ability to put out an irrational message.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
