between the chapel and the theory

There are two kinds of everything it seems. Whenever you see the word seems it means a reliance on appearances. Fact is we cannot be absolutely sure of anything. After all everything concrete, the so called real, is a figment of the imagination originally from the unseen. This observable fact seems unlikely to those who usually accept everything dynamic as a static instead. There are those who go through life looking at reality as a photograph instead of a movie. Do you feel more secure getting a hard copy or are you sufficiently satisfied with the changing screen on your computer? If you are in a movie you are like Wayne Gretzy who it is said said I don't skate to where the puck is, I skate to where it is going to be. Sounds just like the stock market. So there are two kinds of everything it seems, and this is largely why these God is Existence sites are addressed to two kinds of atheists. The basic kick off point is the Christian atheist who accepts the Bible and the secular atheist who doesn't. The Christian atheist is more impressed with the past than is the secularist view and naturally accepts the ancient writers as having greater knowledge of existence. The secular atheist is caught up more securely in the present as the best thinking there is so far, particularly from their own generation. So they regard themelves the most informed right now, which suggests they under estimate the future. This is why the Sunset Stroller blog Specific Theory of Existence never  references anything from the Bible whereas the Chapel at Pulpit Rock does. Sticking point for the secular atheist often is semantics as he skims over meanings of ancient writers amid the different imagery in their translated languages. Whereas on the other hand the Christian atheist, it often seems, wanders back and forth between the abstract spiritual and the concrete, seen somewhat arbitrarily from their side. The Christian atheist will easily render the spiritual impotent by thinking metaphor which parks problems for difficult points in limbo. All these differences require correspondingly different views of the world to converse correctly, as our words being unagreed upon symbols will allow. We wave flags in the dusk at each other in feeble attempts to communicate, assuming our efforts are clearer than they actually are. There are two stages here. We will engage in a spiritual battleground over the meanings of each word rather than agree over the combined ideas of the word's intended conceptual meanings so we can move on to the actual problems to be resolved. This is where semantics enters the picture, the moving picture.