Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Special Feature: Contradict Movement

So, we've all seen the bumper sticker...


I found a better one...


Andy Wrasman explains the meaning behind the sticker in the video below:



Get your sticker here.  The bumper sticker comes with this explanation for those who might ask about it.

Learn more here.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

17 comments:

Andrew Ryan said...

Sure they can't all be true - but the point of the original bumper sticker is that they should all be able to co-exist. Do you agree with that, or do you think they should all just tear each other apart?

Chad said...

...do you think they should all just tear each other apart?

Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that I said, "Yes, I think they should all just tear each other apart."

So what?

Andrew Ryan said...

You've lost me, Chad – for the sake of what argument?

Do you actually believe that or not?

Chad said...

Hello Mr. Ryan,

You are an atheist, yes?

Respectfully

Andrew Ryan said...

Mr Chad, where is this going? My point or 'argument' was that the designer of the original logo desired that people didn't 'tear each other apart', and that anyone that desired the same could therefore support the meaning of the logo. I would question why someone would have a problem with the logo unless they did NOT desire the same.

So sure, if you want humanity to tear itself apart through religious wars, then obviously you'd object to the very aims of the logo. But I'm pretty sure you do NOT want that, so I don't get your point/objection.

To answer your question: yes, I am an atheist, but I think my above point would stands whether it came from a Christian (certainly I have Christians friends and relatives who agree with my position).

Chad said...

Hello Mr. Ryan,

First off, I never objected to the original bumper sticker. I was very careful in my wording. I said, "I found a better one."

Second, the reason I believe that the "Contradict" sticker is better is because while I certainly believe and concur that we should be able to "co-exist" despite of our differing worldviews and religious views (Andy actually explains this in the first 30 seconds of the video; this is why I posted it) , I believe that ultimately "co-existence" is to weak. I believe we must move beyond co-existence to love.

For example, imagine that my neighbor has a terminal illness and I have the cure. It would not be the loving thing to do to simply "co-exist" with him, but offer him the cure. In the same way, the Christian message is that we all have a terminal illness (sin) and that Jesus has the only cure. So, when I share this message (cure) with my friends, neighbors and co-workers (with love, respect and humility) I am doing so because I love them. It would be easy to simply "co-exist" with them and not say anything, but, in my view, it would not be the most loving thing to do.

So, to answer your question, I agree with you, but I believe there is a better way.

Now, my other point would be that I suppose from my perspective, on atheism, I can see why all the religions "tearing themselves apart" would be perhaps taboo or social disadvantageous; however, I can't see why all the religions tearing themselves apart would be objectively wrong.

Respectfully

Andrew Ryan said...

"however, I can't see why all the religions tearing themselves apart would be objectively wrong."

You've already seen my arguments on objective morality. Given that I see the existence or non-existence of a God as making no difference to the question of OMT, I could throw the same question back at you.

But reducing every single discussion back to the OMT question pretty much make every conversation pointless. Better to start at the point of common ground and work from there, no? We start from a common agreement that we don't want people tearing each other apart.

That's why it's pointless talking to a pre-suppositionalist about anything - even if you're talking about the best way to hard-boil an egg, they can bring it back to their pre-supp argument.

Chase said...

Hello again Andrew,

In your most recent comment you stated:

But reducing every single discussion back to the OMT question pretty much make every conversation pointless. Better to start at the point of common ground and work from there, no? We start from a common agreement that we don't want people tearing each other apart.

What evidence beyond our human intuition and desire are you using to establish "that we don't want people tearing each other apart" as the starting point?

Respectfully,

Andrew said...

We don`t want people tearing each other apart is a statement about our desires. If you and I decided we wanted to get to Las Vegas and discussed the best route, our starting point is our mutual desire to go. We don`t need evidence beyond agreeing on that.

Chase said...

Andrew,

So, are you saying that people tearing each other apart is not objectively wrong, just a desired state?

Andrew R said...

Your question has nothing to do with anything I was saying - it is a complete change of topic, Chase.

Andrew R said...

Your example of the sick neighbour is missing the point of the bumper sticker. If you're trying to cure your sick neighbour then you're already trying to 'co-exist' with him. The problem - the problem the bumper sticker is aimed at - is when two neighbours are both convinced the other is sick and the only cure is to slaughter them.

Chad said...

Mr. Ryan,

First off, "Andrew" wrote "We don`t want people tearing each other apart is a statement about our desires."

Chase responded- "So, are you saying that people tearing each other apart is not objectively wrong, just a desired state?"

If you are not that Andrew, then simply ignore the comment.

Second, as I've stated and still affirm, co-existing with someone simply says, "I'll tolerate you even though our views differ." That is all well and fine. However, love goes beyond co-existence and is in my view superior.

The point of the "Contradict" bumper sticker is to make clear that these views all can't be true at the same time.

Frankly, I find it silly to quibble over this especially when one considers that I've ALREADY agreed with your main contention when I wrote- "I certainly believe and concur that we should be able to "co-exist" despite of our differing worldviews and religious views.."

You may have the last word on this matter.

Respecfully

Andrew R said...

Sorry Chad, but I don't understand your point in quoting me then Chase, so I don't know what your contention is there. My reply to Chase stands, as far as I can see.

You say you believe the second sticker to be better. Why is it an either/or thing?

Chase said...

Andrew,

You stated:

We don`t want people tearing each other apart is a statement about our desires.

Please explain to me how asking you to clarify whether or not you are saying people tearing each other a part is not objectively wrong, just a desired state, is off topic.

Respectfully.

Andy Wrasman said...

Andrew Ryan,

Clearly you didn't watch the video or read the page of explanation for Contradict. The opening lines of both state that co-existence and tolerance are both good and necessary!

Peace be with you,
Andy Wrasman

Andrew Ryan said...

I don't understand how it is ON topic, so I guess neither of us understand the other. It makes no difference to my point whether it's one or the other of your two options.