(Carter Payne Event Center/Green Man Taproom) at 320 S. Weber St.
Would have loved to know about the meeting on July 13th before the article was published on July 13th.
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.
I live in Colorado and totally want to see amerigeddon but no theaters in Colorado showing it
Did I miss where it is located?
This article has several factual errors. Here are just a few: 1) The previous route on Wahsatch was 60 minutes, not 30 minutes; 2) The reasons given why ONEN objects to the plan are not correct; 3) Some elderly and people with disabilities are negatively affected by moving the bus route away from the amenities on Wahsatch Avenue. Some people have to resort to stealing grocery carts or take a cab. Why isn't the Independence Center concerned for the people they are supposed to be protecting? 4) The main reasons listed on the ONEN website are safety issues of placing buses on an overloaded residential street, and that doing so violates the ONEN Master Plan and City Ordinance intended to respect our residential streets.
The ONEN Bus Plan, which keeps a direct bus down Cascade while returning a local bus down Wahsatch, improves the bus system for people who need to reach the local amenities while maintaining a 15-minute bus service to points north and south. Most of all, it respects that Nevada is already busy and dangerous enough without adding buses to the equation. 15 minute service is only lost for the 1.4-mile stretch through the residential area.
15-minute service is an attempt to attract choice riders at the expense of conveniences for those who need the bus to survive. ONEN is not against 15-minute service, but it does not work through our neighborhood because it keeps the bus away from local amenities and makes an already deadly residential street even more dangerous. There have been four fatalities in the last 4 years on the 1.4-mile stretch of Nevada Avenue through ONEN. We think the City should be making this residential street (that passes 1/2 block from Steele Elementary) safer. There has already been one bus-related accident on Nevada in the 2nd month of service.
I am the ONEN Transit Committee Chair. If you are willing to reprint this article as an objective piece of journalism, please contact me to get the facts. Readers should know that this is an editorial piece and only tells one side of the story.
Once again, Morse simply doesn't understand why he was fired--twice.
Once again, Morse blames the firearm.
Once again, he's wrong.
Morse tries to engage in political skullduggery by claiming that Scalia wrote that there is no right to have what Morse repeatedly and incorrectly calls "military-style assault" rifles (which is NOT a semi-auto rifle, despite what Morse thinks, and he should know better since he was a cop before he got fired from that job, too!). To quote the actual Heller ruling in Holding 3:
"The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster."
In short, because a semi-auto rifle is a class of arms, it can't be banned, and we have a right to them, both under the Second AND Fourth Amendments. Morse seems to forget that the peaceable acquisition, possession, use, and disposal of private property, including firearms, is not only a fundamental right, but protected by both Amendments and is none of government's (or his!) damned business.
Instead he wants to hold third parties, gun sellers responsible for the actions people take with the products that people buy once they buy them, as if the sellers are somehow mind readers and can act like Radar O'Reilly. Sorry, Johnny, but that's crap. By your standard, I should hold YOU responsible for laws that you passed that criminals ignored that harmed me and violated my rights--like the magazine ban that violated my property rights and the background checks that violated my privacy rights.
No, you can't sue gun makers for their products working correctly, even if the user was a deranged nut case, or a flaming liberal (but I repeat myself), or a hyper-religious conservative (again, I repeat myself). When will you learn, Johnny, that the responsibility for one's actions lie with the individual alone and not someone else? I'm sure that was taught to you in pre-Kindergarten. Were you absent that day?
You were fired from at least two jobs because you have been repeatedly shown to be unable to cope with adult reality, as most liberals are similarly unable to do so. When you decide to join the adults in the real world, then maybe you'll be listened to, but you've got a long, long road to travel before then.
Yes, Glenn, there has been an "expansion of marriage" because terms and conditions have evolved since the start of civilization more than 8 thousand years ago. Thankfully, woman are no longer considered property, just like multiple marriages were outlawed and divorce was legalized. Also, adultery was legalized or taken off the books as a crime, and you're complaining about marriage changing to include LOVING AND COMMITTED SAME SEX PARTNERS??? Get real, dude.
Willie Breazell: You are misguided. The Colorado Constitution could be shortened rather easily, not by the misguided Raise the Bar Amendment, which is Californication written all over it, but by a simple amendment. Ready? Here it is:
"All citizen statutory initiatives shall not be amended or repealed by the Legislature, and each aforementioned initiative shall contain a statutory section listing the sections of the statues that initiative enacts or amends that shall not be amended or repealed by the Legislature."
That simple: isolate and highlight statutory changes that the people make, and keep the Legislature from undoing what the people decide.
Limiting or restricting the Legislature use of the Health and Safety Clause is a different issue, yet another good idea, since that prevents citizen referenda on bills passed, requiring citizens to turn to the constitutional amendment process in the first place.
As for #78, yes, it's a bad idea. Most liberal ideas that screw with the marketplace are.
Dick Standaert: Correct. Colorado Springs Forward is anything but. The correct solution is to make the CSU Board separate from the City Council and elected separately.
Matt Oalfssen: You are something resembling a whining idiot. Do us all a favor and leave for somewhere else where you'll be appreciated, like Flint, or North Korea.
Larry Lutz: ROFL!
Larimore Nicholl: must you continue to gab about your experiences with ObamaCare?
Tim Wood: Nope. The current system of party nominees making the final ballot is just fine. Top Two has been an unmitigated disaster in California. If you want to fix the system, then work for actual improvements like ranked-choice voting and equal funding of campaigns, including getting the media to pull out their heads and recognize that there are more than D/R candidates in races and cover them equally--or else the media is giving in-kind donations to candidates that must be monetized and recorded for each and every time.
Stephen Shogan: The caucus system isn't broken. The primary system is. Let your political parties fund their own nomination processes without taxpayer subsidy.
Steve Mabon: You're correct about the Lamborn Prayer fiasco and him being a disappointment, but dead wrong on the rest.
"But term-limited Senate President Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, showing more allegiance to the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity than his own constituents, used his influence to prevent the bill from reaching the Senate floor."
Bullmanure. Stick to something you're good at, Ralphie, like overeating at stadiums. Doing the Koch thing just shows your intellectual bankruptcy and lack of real argument.
The bill died because it was an end-run around TABOR, and you know it.
As for I-25, the reason it hasn't been widened is due to CDOT's incompetence as much as Denver-based politics. In a better world, it would have been done two decades ago. Both the lanes and bridges in that stretch need improvement, but I-25 also needs widening from Circle Drive to US85 in Fountain as well.
Little D at nine...hmmm. Nine year olds reach the highest level of clarity in humans. These are some of the last rational thoughts that a human has before they are forever reduced to a slave to hormones. However, to be a resolute partisan at nine,smacks of reactive thinking to some powerful counterbalance.
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.
Colorado College should exert some humanitarian and egalitarian ideals on their runaway Pop/NPR/Corporate media outlet. The last thing Colorado Springs needs is another PEAK-FM. If this GM and her happy sycophants want another pop megastation, they should quit KRCC and apply at the Peak and quit ruining public radio.
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.
Glad to know that this is a 'step one' location. I've been a bit bummed by the reduction in scope from the original plans. Bring it on CSPM! Let's get this thing going!
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".
Nice. Let's hear more about diversity, inclusion, and acceptance. We need more stories with positive vibes in our world, so keep them coming! 😎
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation