Thoughts on the "Coexist" Bumper Sticker (part 2) The Search for Harmony

Add a Comment

33 Comments

Comment by Ben McCann on April 22, 2008 at 12:53am

Nice thoughts Patrick... I was just re-reading this blog... Sorry I didn't answer back before this :o) What did you think if the videos that Joe Posted? what did you think of mine?

Ben

Comment by Patrick Eichhold on March 8, 2008 at 11:24am

I'm glad this topic came back up. I was too busy to comment the first time around. I followed a little bit of what was being said, but not all of it. I don't know how the "coexist" topic turned into an evolution vs. creation vs. intelligent design debate, but I'd like to bring it back to the original topic.

I'd like to start out by saying that these "coexist" bumper stickers happen to be one of my pet peeves.

I don't exactly remember the first time I saw the image, but when I did it only consisted of the Crescent, the Star of David, and the Cross. As a graphic designer, I found the design to be clever, but I found I had one of those WTF? moments. I also remember Bono being involved somehow.

Now the design has been expanded to include more categories of people, and every time I see one of those I roll my eyes some more.

By now you're probably thinking that a bigot has joined the thread, so before you send me a nasty reply just know that I totally agree with the whole "coexist" message. What bothers me is the way it is presented.

First let's take down the ornaments and get to the meat of the message:

Coexist. [period]

The verb of the subject is "coexist." The subject, which is implied, is "you." So what these bumper stickers say to me is, "You, coexist."

OK, how?

Now over the past month I've been listening to Secrets of the Millionaire Mind by T. Harv Eker. He explains that wealth, or lack of wealth, is a result of what's going on inside a particular person. He says that thoughts lead to feelings, which lead to actions, which lead to results. Therefore, if a person is planting seeds of wealth in his or her mind, that person will begin to feel wealthy, then take actions which will lead to wealth.

This concept can be applied to coexistence. Coexistence, or lack of coexistence, is the result of people's actions, which are a result of their feelings, which are a result of their thoughts.

Mr. Eker goes on to say that people's thoughts are a result of their conditioning—what they have heard or experienced in the past.

So instead of telling people to coexist we each need to look at ourselves, and recondition ourselves so that we begin to think thoughts of coexistence, which will lead to feelings of coexistence, which will lead to actions of coexistence, which will lead to coexistence.

So take that "Coexist" sticker off your bumper, and put it on your steering wheel.

Hmm, maybe I should put that last sentence on a bumper sticker.

Comment by Ben McCann on February 24, 2008 at 12:16am

Here is the one that Challenges Darwin's Theory.

Comment by Ben McCann on February 24, 2008 at 12:01am

yep.. you are right.. that is hippocrisy... that was my natural man overcoming in a moment the supernatural part of me that usually supresses the attempt to engage in a "fight".

I should not have done that. I am sorry, truly sorry for that comment and I hope that you can forgive me, it will not happen again.

And I know that Ken Miller is a Catholic and a theist... after some long conversations with my father, a scientist, former Catholic, and a Theist... He has really given me insight into the flaws in some of my own arguements and those made by the "Answers In Genesis" crowd.

He has made a point to express that "AiG" pretends to be using science, but much of their science is not science, rather apologetics guised as science. They do nothing in that respect to promote the claims of Christ if they have to lie and misrepresent themselves. God doesn't need them.. he doesn't need anyone to lie for him, that is contrary to his nature. Unfortunately many religious insititutions get so wrapped up in the "numbers" people and financial, that they forget what they are there for. I think that more than anything is what turns people off to God, and religion in general. But I am composing a response to Professor Dawkins on your blog... I hope to be done with it soon... I truly value your imput on my thoughts, and look forward to your comment. I have also posted video that accurately and scientifically make good claims.

Consequently, I agree with a large amount of Dawkins Claims about Religion... unfortunately he is true, but it is the basis of his perception and his attitude towards those who disagree with him that I challenge. Give me 5 minutes and that post will be live there.

I will watch Ken Miller AGAIN... so that I will lool closely, I have 14 pages of handwritten notes from watching the Dawkins videos... I hope that you will revisit the videos that I posted after KenMiller as arguement 1 "that prove part 1 to the question that dawkins said he would need answered to believe in God "entitled The Privelaged Planet.. addressing the need for Dawkins to see that the Universe Laws and Constants are too finely tuned to be an accident , and Part 2 is a video that has not been posted on this site, but posted on your blog entitled "Unlocking the Mystery of Life. " Enjoy... I will post them here too.

Comment by Joe Shoemaker on February 23, 2008 at 11:27pm

BTW... Ken Miller is a Catholic and a theist.

Comment by Joe Shoemaker on February 23, 2008 at 11:24pm

#3 re: hypocrisy

You say:

1. Keep it clean (no cheap shots and hitting below the belt)

Then toss in the "you are what you eat" comment.

Comment by Joe Shoemaker on February 23, 2008 at 11:23pm

#2 re: human genome vs. human genome.

Comment by Joe Shoemaker on February 23, 2008 at 11:21pm

Ben:

Just cause you asked nicely:

I'll do these one at a time. It will require you to sit still for a bit.

Comment by Ben McCann on February 23, 2008 at 8:08pm

Kyle,

I misspoke.. at the end of your blog... I said there were "no moderations" on this blog, and then at the beginning of this post I outlined the rules of engagement and began to moderate... I meant to say that there were no permissions to see posts immediately, i wasn't planning or expecting to moderate, but I had to censor myself and joe in 2 of our posts... they were not honorable towards each other and for not being honorable, I apologize... but I don't apologize for the censorship... I stand behind it because I want people to feel free to express themseleves here without fear of attack. I want them to follow the same rules and I am following.

Comment by Ben McCann on February 23, 2008 at 7:59pm

Joe, From your post, where you said:

JOE START:
"Ben sayeth, "There is no link between vairtions (sic.) of species and a point where a species begin to EVOLVE into another species. There is "zero" evidence to support this."

Patently false. Your "God of the gaps" argument has been shredded. There are hundreds - if not thousands - of examples of transitional species.

There are, in fact, AT LEAST 5 transitional species for whales alone which track precisely how land mammals evolved back into water dwellers.

We know roughly when the split between what became chimps and what became humans happened (we didn't evolve from chimps, we shared a common ancestor), and we can mark specifically in our genetic code where the missing pair of chromosomes (between chimps and humans, they have one more pair) merged.

If it's OK with you (and even if it's not), I prefer to get my science education from scientists, not theologists. "
JOE END:

BEN START:

I SAY... SHOW ME... point me in the direction of this evidence, I have yet to see it. you can't say it is shredded until you show the shredding and allow discussion.

ALso... I say SHOW ME... point to my hippocrisy as you say exists. I am game.

If you choose to go somewhere else, I have to ask why?
BEN END:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4