<?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: New Book: Radical Atheism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2008/11/30/new-book-radical-atheism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2008/11/30/new-book-radical-atheism/</link>
	<description>A Bulletin Board for Continental Philosophy, History of Philosophy and Moreâ€¦</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:11:13 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Clark</title>
		<link>http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2008/11/30/new-book-radical-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-52672</link>
		<dc:creator>Clark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:35:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2008/11/30/new-book-radical-atheism/#comment-52672</guid>
		<description>Wasn&#039;t it always known Derrida was an atheist?  Weren&#039;t the &quot;religious elements&quot; in his thought (or Heidegger&#039;s for that matter) more tied to either a genealogical element or a structural similarity?  Even Caputo&#039;s The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion Without Religion acknowledges the atheism.  

I suppose one could see it all as a double move between atheism and theism with Derrida being &quot;something else.&quot;  

I&#039;m curious as to where this really does differ from the consensus.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wasn&#8217;t it always known Derrida was an atheist?  Weren&#8217;t the &#8220;religious elements&#8221; in his thought (or Heidegger&#8217;s for that matter) more tied to either a genealogical element or a structural similarity?  Even Caputo&#8217;s The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion Without Religion acknowledges the atheism.  </p>
<p>I suppose one could see it all as a double move between atheism and theism with Derrida being &#8220;something else.&#8221;  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m curious as to where this really does differ from the consensus.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
