Comments for Prior Perceptions Blog

Comment on NOT QUITE THE REAL THING by Frank DN

Frank DN — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:52:27 +0000

It really bothers me that I used to want to promote all that stuff myself. I told myself I was different but honest reflection says otherwise.

Comment on Testing a New Blog Editor by Frank DN

Frank DN — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:49:17 +0000

Seems a bit lacking in features and some, like the font size, are rather vague “+” and “-” instead of an actual size. The spell checker also only notifies you the word is spelled wrong but not how to actually spell it. Weird. Open source software is great but some of it leaves a lot of polish to be desired.

Comment on WORSHIP LEADER IS A PERVERT by Frank DN

Frank DN — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:45:07 +0000

That’s been bothering me for quite awhile lately. I know several people who, if they were honest with themselves, are in a position that screams for them to re-evaluate their beliefs. The truth is plain as day in front of them but they seem unable to grasp it. Because it would destroy their little social world.

Comment on WORSHIP LEADER IS A PERVERT by the chaplain

the chaplain — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:02:06 +0000

…this unfortunate event will soon be forgotten. It should shake people’s faith to the core but it won’t. It should raise all kinds of questions but they will go unasked.

Stories like this make me want to literally shake some Christians. But - I did the same things for a long time. Too long. Far too long. When one’s entire social circle is tied up in a church, it’s much easier to shove the questions aside and just keep on living one’s life. That goes double when one’s entire professional circle is tied up in a church or denomination. Still, in the end, intellectually responsible, moral people have to ask the questions and face the answers, and many leave their faith behind, where it belongs.

Comment on NOT QUITE THE REAL THING by the chaplain

the chaplain — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:51:55 +0000

I want to point out that these elements are all present in all churches; the emphasis may not be the same but the goal still is. They want to control what you think and what you believe. That gives them control over what you do with your money. It gives them control over what you do with your body and your relationships. It gives them influence over your politics. It gives them some measure of control over your entire life.

You got that right. I have nothing to add - you said it all right there.

Comment on IF ONLY I COULD REMEMBER by Frank DN

Frank DN — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:09:33 +0000

Me, articulate? You’re making me blush.

Comment on IF ONLY I COULD REMEMBER by TinaFCD

TinaFCD — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:24:00 +0000

I meant to say, “nowadays”.

Comment on IF ONLY I COULD REMEMBER by TinaFCD

TinaFCD — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:23:27 +0000

I liked this post, I wish I were as articulate as you.
I almost want to ask all my fundie relatives, “why is there no burning bush that talks, walking on water, miracles like growing a limb back”…etc.

Comment on RANDOM ACTS OF TOMFOOLERY by TinaFCD

TinaFCD — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:42:58 +0000

I love Saugatuck. Thanks.

Comment on OBSERVING REALITY by BenGemini

BenGemini — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:03:18 +0000

I did not define atheism. I said empirically you have the same set of facts to reach a conclusion as does the theist. You see suffering and so does the theist, you see the life forms on the planet and the material universe and formulate a conclusion based on your interpretation of the evidence you see before you, just as a theist does. If I begin a conversation with an atheist of course we will exchange counter view points. I already said that I have no axe to grind here or with Frank. I will share what I have already said to Frank in that I believe in Universalism ( all will be ultimately saved ). I believe that belief is supported in the Bible. Of course, a non Christian does not accept the Bible as anything than a collection of non inspired books so evidences from the Bible are derided. Frank differs in that he comes from a Christian experience and he is open to evidence. If he can be convinced of Christianity and then, through his trials, challenge his belief system then isn’t it possible that he is able to challenge his current belief system if the evidence is compelling enough? Of course my conversations with Frank would involve asking questions in order to see if I have any answers just as Frank’s exchanges would be the same. There are intellectual arguments on both sides and, in my opinion, it is what the facts lead a person to conclude not necessarily out of intellectual elitism but personal experience. We all believe in things we cannot see or necessarily prove ( atoms, electricity, sub atomic particles ) but whose presence is felt or observed and a theory drawn up. I feel God’s presence but am aware enough to know that alternative explanations exist for my subjective experience. Arguments against God usually result from questioning God’s goodness / preventative power and then lead to criticism of the Bible. Not that I am trying to define atheism ( a disbelief in God ) by that analysis but it is just something I have observed to be true when talking to non Christians. Atheism IS a belief system that uses the same set of facts to dispute God’s existence. The only real difference between an atheist or a Christian being the personal “take” on the matter. Most people do not have an opinion, one way or another. An active atheist is therefore a person that has explored theism and concluded against it and who thinks he/she has reached the correct conclusion and advocates that conclusion to others. I’m not your usual Christian and believe things that many Christians do not as a result of my own search for the truth. I began by saying that I would prefer to e-mail Frank and am currently awaiting further correspondence but I am quite happy to mix it with others on the blog as long as the input is open minded and amicable. If you feel I had tried to define atheism in an incorrect manner then elucidate by all means. As said, my former input gave no “definitions” but an accurate appraisal from an empirical point of view.