I don’t want to Coexist!

I saw someone on Twitter advocate the bumper sticker to the left and while I will admit it’s a cool design, as I tweeted back to him, “Cute bumper sticker, bad message”.

I don’t want to co-exist with religion, any more than I want to co-exist with murderers or child molesters.  All of these are anti-social behaviors and generally unacceptable ideas.

Well, except to people who engage in them.  If you ask someone involved with NAMBLA if sex with young boys is a bad idea, they’ll say no, of course not, and give you tons of stories about how wonderful it is.  Oh sure, they’ll say, there are some bad eggs, the same position of many Catholics regarding priest sex abuse, but in general, it’s a good thing that people ought to support, if we just ignore the few problem priests.

I just don’t buy it.  I don’t think we ought to encourage irrational beliefs no matter what they are or how popular they may be.  I don’t think we ought to praise people who believe ridiculous things, nor should we refrain from telling them believe ridiculous things when we come across them.  This goes down the line, we shouldn’t want to coexist with white racists or black racists, male sexists or female sexists, etc.  These are all absurd positions and ought to be soundly rejected by all rational people for what they are.  Ridiculous religions are ridiculous religions no matter what “good” might be found in them.  Extract the good, reject the religion.  Racism is bad no matter the skin color of the person who holds it.  Sexism is bad no matter the genitalia of the person who holds it.  Why should we seek to coexist with any of them?

Of course, this new design is a lot different than the ones you usually see when you’re out driving around, the wholly-religious version that demands religious tolerance even when the religion is intolerable.  Perhaps this version wants people not to coexist with religions, but with alien species?  Can our planet coexist with other planets?  Can the Milky Way galaxy coexist with the billions of other galaxies in the universe.  Hey, for all I know, it’s a call to to believe in and accept our reptilian alien overlords, more popularly known as the Raelian movement.  Who knows, I’ve seen stranger things on the Internet.

And you know something?  I oppose coexisting with that too!

Update:  As I was looking around today, I found the perfect explanation for why coexistence is a pointless gesture and I’d like to share it with you.  Great job for whoever came up with this.

22 thoughts on “I don’t want to Coexist!

  1. Ahh vjack. That's what I was thinking as well. "Coexist"? I think not. Propagating myths as reality judas never worked for me. Most, if not all of the ills on this planet are due to "religion"

    1. It's just more acccomodationist nonsense, people not wanting to make waves or stand up for reality, it's easier to just pretend reality doesn't matter than to tell people with no sense of it where to shove their absurd beliefs.

  2. The COEXIST movement by some is nothing more than people of faiths circling the wagons.By claiming all faiths are just different paths to the same god they are muddying the water with new age philosophy.This is just another step in the evolution of faith destined to fail. For in the end they are willing to kill each other over ancient myths,silly dogma,and religious hatred contained within they're holy texts.

    1. Honestly, the reason I think these people exist is out of fear. They figure that if they embrace other faiths, that the other faiths will stop trying to stamp them out and embrace them. Ultimately, it's "I accept you, please don't hurt me!"

      It's all stupid.

      1. I'm a member of the "i" in Coexist (pagan), and I can honestly say that religion is a load of confusing pain and misery for many people.

        I am constantly harassed by members of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and the other major religions (except Buddhism, because they're awesome).

        I am borderline atheistic pagan, and though I believe in my God and Goddess, I'm starting to think that maybe they're just personifications of natural forces (for those who don't know, the God and Goddess are typically taken to represent the Sun and the Moon and Earth respectively).

        Yes, I practise ritual magic, but honestly a lot of pagans (including myself) think it very unlikely what we do is actually magic. Herbalism is just medicine without the refinement, and the spells etc. could be anything from science we don't yet understand to a glorified placebo effect.

        I think you're likely to find that many pagans think like me. We are open-minded, kind nature-worshippers, who (at least in my experience) will reject their own beliefs if they don't tally with scientific proof.

        Oh, and I'm a scientist and a firm advocate of evolution, the Big Bang model of cosmology, and modern science and medicine. :)

        1. So my question is, if you really don't buy into any of it, why do you do it? What is the rationalization behind your actions? If you cannot justify any of it with reality, what's the point?

        1. Actually, that was the first time I had seen that one, thanks for sharing. It did come up this time, I've found that Tumblr is notoriously unreliable. In posting there, I've had it pop up with "cannot post at this time" or whatever it is at least a dozen times in 3 days.

    1. Deuteronomy 17:2-5
      If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

  3. I think you're totally missing the point.

    The "COEXIST" movement to me, does not mean that we should tolerate anything extreme, dangerous, or immoral.

    There's a line from Ben Harper song that pretty much sums it up: "If you're causing no harm, then you're alright with me…"

    How could you not want want everyone to actually get along and live in harmony?

    How could you not want a peaceful society?

    "COEXIST" does NOT mean embrace the evils of all religions or beliefs…

    It's… "Hey… let's all stay on the same page here and work together."

    If you're against that, then everything you wrote is… irrelevent!

    As for the 'summing up' on the bottom… you need to a little more research before giving that one the thumbs up!

    1. The problem is, religion is inherently harmful. As I said in the article, you can only tolerate the tolerable and I don't find religion to be tolerable and the idea of groups of warring irrational theists getting along and living in harmony, while in the back of their heads condemning each other to eternal torture, seems silly. These people can't be on the same page because their beliefs inherently place each and every one in the position of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong". In order to find common ground, everyone must approach things with a common understanding and common beliefs. That's just not the case. Therefore, why coexist?

      1. I disagree that religion is inherently harmful. However, it is true that many people use different religions and their texts to create their own perversions concerning what is "right" and what kind of people are of the "right" kind. Take Christianity, for example: there are a bunch of people walking around with "abortion is murder" and "God hates queers" types of banners, giving a bad name to all people of that religion. Of course, were the aforementioned people perhaps a notch more literate and interested in what their religion is about, they could have a glance at their own bibles and see that, while it is true there are passages concerning the stoning of idolaters and, for example, adulterers, that Jesus himself who ultimately made the difference between historical and contemporary Judaism and Christianity advocated the philosophy that no human has a moral superiority to another, and is therefore not in a position to judge. Which is why, when asked for consent on the stoning of an adulteress, He said the famous words "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", causing all of the eager would-be stoners to leave one by one, having reflected on their own track record.
        So while some religions may hold as immoral things that are commonplace in the world today, it is possible to follow a personal faith without seeing any reason to make a fuss about it or to question anybody's right, will or moral integrity in believing and living differently.
        And, please refute my argument if you can, scientifically, but is it not correct that the existence of an almighty God cannot be proven either true or false by any empiric observations? Whichever point of view you may choose, I am convinced that any rational argument to support that view may be countered with an equally rational argument of the opposite persuasion. Therefore, faith in God or anything supernatural is to me a question of choosing whether or not to believe in something that cannot be beyond doubt proven or disproven. And taking into account the fact that not being able to prove something true or false is never in any scientific study or logical argumentation sufficient grounds for considering the opposite an established fact.

        1. The problem is, the definition of God keeps changing, specifically to keep it away from the prying eyes of science and reason. If you go back into the history of Christianity and Judiasm, you find that God did directly deal with humans, he was easy to find and talk to, but as time went on and science was able to examine things rationally, Christianity kept redefining God into a smaller and smaller box until the current model,which has only been in place for maybe a century, states that it is impossible to ever find God. That's not a reality, that's a redefinition. However, it really causes problems for Christians (and this applies to all theists who have done essentially the same thing) because there are tons of rational people who, without any evidence for the factual existence of God, simply won't believe. It's one of the factors for the rise of atheism.

          The reality is that you cannot "choose" to believe something. Belief is not a choice. Belief is something that you have been convinced, rightly or wrongly, is true. It isn't something you can just decide to do. All that you can do is try to make sure that the things you believe are most likely true and that those things that do not stand up to the rigors of intense investigation are rejected. There's no such thing as belief beyond any doubt. That's an absurd standard. No one holds any reasonable beliefs beyond any doubt and those who claim they do are either fanatics or just not well versed in logic and reason. In fact, that's really where the true problem lies, people who are either unable to examine their beliefs reasonably or unwilling to do so. Those are the same people who tend to believe other absurd nonsense like alien abductions, Bigfoot, astrology, etc. There is a much, much higher probability that someone who believes in a god is going to believe in all manner of credulous nonsense because they have already fallen for one unsupported assertion on an emotional basis, they almost certainly fall for more.

          In the end, it isn't my job to prove your beliefs wrong, it's your job to prove them right. I'm not claiming there are no gods, I'm saying I've seen no evidence that would support the actual existence of any gods and therefore, I am not going to believe they exist. The same goes for ghosts. The same goes for vampires. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is a logical fallacy on your part. This isn't an argument between atheists and theists, this is an argument between theists and reality.

  4. I think it is wrong to put other people down just because of their belief system, it is quite possible that their Gods do exist. How do we know if they are real or not? We don't. I guess some people can just say there are no gods, nothing. But how do you know? Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in something. If you are uncomfortable being with or around people that believe in a god, then just don't hang out with them. You go your way and they go theirs. I am not saying that being atheist is wrong, because it isn't. It's just that you should be nicer about how you voice things, you can't just walk up to someone and say "Hey, you know the God that you have been believing in all your life? He's not real". I think it is good to be able to except people's religions and be OK with it, you just tell your self "I don't believe in their God but it's OK that they do believe, because it is.
    My recent post Another Podcast Down Because of Feminism

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)