By far the biggest impact on the Arkansas River is the industrial rafting industry. Over 50 companies have commercialized, commodified and prostituted every inch of the upper Arkansas. The year in, year out impact of virtually unregulated commercial rafting has had a devastating effect on the ecology of the region. If ROAR were a serious environmental group, that would be their focus, not some minor two week art project.
Thanks for the civil discourse, it is always enjoyable and informative. Hell, I'll talk about just about anything as long as it stays civil, (of course, I do fail at civility myself more often than I'd like). You've challenged some of my preconceived notions and given me food for thought as well.
As far as I know, there is still no bus to the airport, nor any affordable flights. I usually fly out of Denver. It would seem important if we are trying to attract tourists though. I use public transportation anytime I travel to a major city, prefer it to driving in a unfamiliar place.
Have an awesome day man!
I may have to reconsider my comment about faith being appropriate only in religious contexts. Perhaps a "Jesus Bench" is there to inspire faith or, maybe just hope, while anticipating the arrival of an actual bus in Colo. Springs :-)
Is there a city bus out to the Municipal airport yet?
In any regard, thanks for the measured comments. You have given me food for thought, and challenged my ability to communicate in some sort of lucid manner. I always enjoy that sort of exchange.
I understand your point concerning the difference between faith and belief, though it is subtle and related to context. For an agnostic, questions of faith and belief are based solely on material evidence. The agnostic asks the question 'how do I know, what I know?' 'Is my knowledge based on solid evidence, or are they beliefs based on feelings, intuition, hearsay, personal ignorance, or manipulation?' To believe and to know are two different things to an agnostic. I know that hairbrushes exist, based on material evidence. I know that if I don't move my toes to prevent a brick from falling on them it will hurt, I know this based on evidence and experience with heavy things falling. A child only touches a hot stove once, once out of curiosity, after that they have knowledge that it will burn.
As for Leprechauns: My intuition tells me that there is no such thing as magical little beings roaming the earth hiding pots of gold called leprechauns; so I tend to believe that they do not exist; however, I have no evidence as to whether they exist or not, so I don't waste my time making those judgements or claiming knowledge about Leprechauns, much like the question of gods existence.
Concerning your question: Why do theists burden atheism with the theological baggage that theists require to affirm their FAITH? I don't know why theist take that position, anymore than why the woman who I initially responded to feels that some folks "atheist cards should be revoked". I suspect that it may have to do with folks rationalizing their own non-evidence based beliefs. Perhaps it is the ego getting in the way of asking the question in an honest way "What evidence do I have for my beliefs?" Perhaps it is a general distaste for admitting there are just some things that cannot be known. Why do atheists try to lump the agnostic point of view in with their own? Good questions.
From a personal point of view. My experiences with both theists and atheists are very similar, as both groups somehow feel that as an agnostic, I really do share their faith and beliefs, I just need a little convincing, a little rhetoric to push me off the fence. I consider myself agnostic, because neither theism or atheism are a good fit for the way my mind operates, I spent my early life, until my late 30s defining myself as an atheist, at some point it didn't work for me anymore, I wish it did, I miss the certainty I felt. The older I get the more I question my own beliefs, the more I ask myself 'how do I know what I know?' Turns out a person can pick up some bad information over time, and allow it to be incorporated as beliefs in a very unconscious way. Agnosticism is really the scientific method applied to life. Distinct and separate from either theism or atheism.
Theists are theists, atheists are atheists, agnostics are agnostics, and if any of these groups are being offended by a Jesus is Lord bus bench, then the question needs to be asked. Why? This is not a church and state issue, it is a freedom of speech issue. It is not an issue of whether Jesus is truly Lord, its about a place to sit (maybe ponder the nature of faith, belief, and knowledge) while waiting for a bus that is partially funded by advertising to arrive.
One would think that such an illustrious Dictionary as the Oxford English (or any other) would know that two different words: “belief” and “faith” have two different meanings.
For example: If I drop a brick, I move my toes, not because I exercise “faith” but because I “believe” that if I don’t, I might experience pain. Both theists and atheists, for the most part, “believe” the same things. What they DON’T share is “faith”.
Faith is appropriate and exists only in the context of religion. When discussing religious issues the appropriate words should be used. Theists have “FAITH” in their God’s existence. They “believe” in the existence of their hair brushes. I hope you can understand that basic difference.**
For the Oxford English Dictionary to not use the word “faith” when defining a word, the ESSENCE of which is the very absence of faith leads me to believe that if they are going to define “atheist” perhaps they should have asked an atheist.
Not only that, but their definition of “agnostic” begs the question: if a person claims to NOT have faith in the existence of a god, how the heck can that same person claim to also NOT have “disbelief”? Again, a person either has faith or they don’t. There is no middle ground.
Though you have deflected the discussion away from the topic, I am still curious as to how you would answer the questions posed in my previous post.
I do concede that in everyday conversation a theist can say “I believe in God”, and everybody understands what they mean. But we are NOT having an everyday conversation. We are specifically talking about religious issues, and that involves FAITH, not generic everyday “beliefs”. I’m surprised a prestigious Dictionary does not recognize that. I hope you can.
Once again you are confusing atheism and agnosticism. Since this discussion is in English, perhaps you might want to consult an English dictionary or any textbook dealing with formal logic. While proof or evidence may be, as you say, totally irrelevant to the atheist; to the agnostic proof and evidence are everything. Words and their meanings are very important. Contrary to your assertion, there is such a thing as an agnostic.
From the Oxford English dictionary:
1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Atheism itself does NOT say “there is no god”. That is a common misunderstanding of what atheism is. Individual atheists ALSO make that mistake when responding to the assertion that there IS a god. All any atheist SHOULD say is “I don’t share your faith in the existence of a supreme being.” (Sorry to use the personal pronoun “your”. I don’t (and didn’t) mean to refer to obliosupercat specifically. I make no assumptions regarding obliosupercat's faith).
Atheism is simply a lack of faith in the existence of a god. There is no more “proof” that there is NO god than there is “proof” that there IS a god. “Proof” has NO role to play, and is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to this discussion…same with the word “evidence”. Atheists understand this, and defiantly should not use such words. As you have pointed out, such a discussion is “… a futile exercise”. Atheists simply do not possess faith and they should leave it at that.
Yet you insist:
“Atheists DO have faith that there is no supreme being.”
Do you exercise faith to NOT believe in leprechauns?
I hope you can understand how silly or absured it would be for me to state emphatically:
“obliosupercat DOES have faith that there are no leprechauns”.
That you seem to be incapable of conceiving of someone NOT having faith, is no justification for you to project faith upon someone who simply doesn’t have faith.
I don’t know why you brought up “agnosticism”. Babies are NOT born “agnostics” with the cognitive ability to contemplate the existence of a god, much less whether one exists or not.
I have a bone to pick with so called “agnostics” too. To “suspend judgement” as to whether there exists a god or not is simply another way to acknowledge that faith in such a being is lacking, and without faith, well, they’re atheists. There is no such thing as an “agnostic”. One has faith, or one does not have faith. To express the idea that the jury might still be out does not have anything to do with whether or not an individual possesses faith.
Why is such a simple concept as atheism so difficult to understand? Why do theists burden atheism with the theological baggage that theists require to affirm their FAITH? The simple lack of faith requires no affirmations, and is unquestionable.
asawatcher. As I stated, The existence or non-existence of a god cannot be proven using any extant logical method, so both views rely on faith. Atheists belief in the non-existence of a deity are based on faith, not sound logic and fact. What you are describing is closer to agnosticism, agnosticism is a position that suspends judgement on all matters of faith, in other words since the existence or non-existence of a deity cannot be proven, the only logical position is to suspend judgement until a time when facts that support either theism or atheism are logically supported. Agnostics simply don't give a damn whether god exists or not, taking a position one way or another results in the same logical fallacies, and is considered a futile exercise. Atheists DO have faith that there is no supreme being, it is an act of faith, due to the lack of evidence to support this belief. Embracing atheism is as much a conscious choice as embracing theism, since we are truly born agnostic. Contrary to you assertion, atheists DO engage in faith, agnostics do not. As for your assumption that I have faith in a supreme being; well, you know what the say about assumptions?
With all due respect, you have expressed a couple of the more common mistaken ideas as to what atheism is.
Like when you write:
“…this includes folks who do not share your belief in the atheist religion.”
Atheism is not a religion. It is the ABSENCE of religion. Sorta the “unreligion”. That’s why the word “atheism” is not capitalized.
“Since the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven through any formal method of logic, both rely on faith and ego.”
Here you express the common failure to recognize the ESSENTIAL difference between a theist and an atheist: atheists simply do NOT engage faith. Theists and atheists share most “beliefs”. What they DON’T share is “faith”. Faith is the essential ingredient of theism. Without faith, there is no religion. The difference between a theist and an atheist is NOTHING MORE than the fact that atheists do not share your faith in the existence of a Supreme Being (a god).
Keep in mind that you were born an atheist. Embracing faith is a conscious choice that theists make. Atheists, simply, do not make that choice.
Cathy. Are atheists issued cards now? From a logical standpoint atheism and religion suffer from the same set of logical fallacies. Since the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven through any formal method of logic, both rely on faith and ego. We have freedom of speech in this country. We are all entitled to say whatever we want, without being censored, this includes folks who do not share your belief in the atheist religion. Is freedom of speech only for card carrying members of your club? Do you issue and revoke the cards yourself? If you want to put your money where your mouth is I'm sure you can purchase your own ad space, until you do, you don't really have a bench to call "mine".
I am an atheist and if the guy above is an atheist, his "atheist card" should be revoked. It's offensive because the city is going down a slippery slope of not caring about the separation of church and state. And if "Jesus" benches are allowed, then my bench with the message, "The Bible is a Book of Fairytales," should be allowed also. Additionally, why is Pam Zubeck putting so much focus on the fact that there was only one caller complaint? It proves nothing. Believe me, there are plenty of us who agree with the caller. And if more calls are needed to make sure separation of church and state are followed, there will be more calls.
Pride parade video: https://youtu.be/IttEAfBFgrI
Super excited to welcome our new neighbors to the hood!
Indy readers, please go to our Facebook page and let us know what you think of the trucks.
WOW, you are still wearing that yellow bracelet! The fact remains that nobody cares enough about the Olympic museum for it to be actually funded at this time.
I get it...disparage a larger group of people based on the behavior of a few. I'm sure you use this methodology when placing judgement quite often - it just rolls off your proverbial tongue with ease. You don't know me so don't lump me into your categories. Have you ever met an Olympic athlete, actually sat down and listened to how dedicated and proud they are to be part of something amazing? I imagine not. I've been so fortunate to meet several Olympians and Paralympians and what is absolutely false, are your generalizations.
Anschutz funded the Colorado Springs drafted and promoted Amendment 2 that pretty much put Colorado Springs on the map as the 'capital' of the hate state! How many people will not consider moving to the city?
Jackie. Comparing artists to athletes is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Taking drugs and leading a vagabond lifestyle is not unscrupulous, (though I can understand how narrow minded sheeple like yourself may interpret any behavior that does not conform to your white-bread conformist ideal as flawed.) Taking drugs in order to win a sporting event is unscrupulous, it is cheating to be specific. Taking so many PEDs that they have to cut off one of your cancer ridden balls is unscrupulous (Are you wearing your trendy yellow bracelet still?). NFL athletes are scumbags for all sorts of reasons. Using taxpayer dollars to build a museum that very few will come to in order to fill the pockets of the local developer cartel is unscrupulous. As the article states the museum is so unsupported that they have no idea when it will even be built. Comparing the rock and roll hall of fame to the Olympic museum is apples and oranges. If your looking for a comparison of unscrupulous institutions; perhaps, the Olympics and the Catholic church might be a better fit. Maybe only 1% of priests rape children, but, it would still be wise to keep your kids away.
Keep in mind that the fire fighting foam is just one possible source and was listed in the original story to show how prevalent this class of chemicals are and their widespread use in various products including carpets and 100s of other products. It may turn out that the chemicals are leeching in from a landfill or old abandoned site.
Okay, so 127 confirmed cases by the IOC, which is international. There will be over 500 US athletes competing in Rio and approximately 10,000 athletes from all over the world and these are just the athletes that qualified. A whopping 1% - the horror! But that 1% makes the news, not the athletes who train diligently to be the best, not the athletes who give back to their communities, not the athletes who start exciting new careers and chapters in their lives when their Olympic careers are over. A total of 26 NFL athletes were busted for using performance enhancing drugs in 2015. So are all NFL athletes scumbags for doping? You're generalizing and yes, you are completely narrow minded. So the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is full of artists and majority of those artists abused drugs and led vagabond lifestyles. Shut that museum down! What the heck was Cleveland thinking when they proposed building this museum? Why would anyone want to visit a museum that showcases a large number people of unscrupulous reputations!?!
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation