A recognisable symbol for atheism

[Lak]

There has been previous discussion (not necessarily here on the TFP) as to how one should, and if it is even reasonable to represent atheism with a symbol, analogous to the crucifix or the star of David.

It is a fair argument that by the nature of atheism and the attitudes held by many atheists, that to adopt a symbol for it is counter-intuitive to what atheism means. I can certainly see where this idea comes from, but personally, in light of tension cropping up recently regarding movements in the US to implement intelligent design classes in public schools, news coverage of alienation of atheists in religious towns and increasingly aggressive Christian preaching in the area around where I live, I feel compelled to find a way to present myself as comfortably and confidently religionless.
I have done some trawling for ideas and there are many, many really good ideas floating around. I was wondering if there are any in actual, regular use by atheists anywhere in the world.

Apart from logos which ARE used, which logos would you WANT to use? I rather fancy the symbol at the end of this proposed 'advertisement' for atheism - I think its a great symbol but of course, it was only just invented and no-one would recognise it. Great video though, check it out.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y-eo_KMKijQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y-eo_KMKijQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Look forward to ideas and responses!

[tecoyah]

Well...I cant attach in here, but this seems the most fitting symbol can imagine:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...en-US:official

[filtherton]

This was the first thing that came to my mind, though it's probably more fitting for new atheism.

Or this one, which would be better if someone could animate it so in addition to rolling his eyes the guy could shake his head too.

[Charlatan]

Why the hell would you want a symbol for atheism? Seems like a ridiculous idea on slightly worse than calling atheists, "brights".

If I wanted the trappings of a religion I would join one.

My atheism does not define me. So why would I care to parade it around?

[Redlemon]

Originally Posted by Lak

I rather fancy the symbol at the end of this proposed 'advertisement' for atheism - I think its a great symbol but of course, it was only just invented and no-one would recognise it.

I recognize it: it's a fermata.



"A fermata (or hold or pause, or colloquially a birdseye) is an element of musical notation indicating that the note should be sustained for longer than its note value would indicate."

I don't see how that relates to atheism.

[ProfessorMayhem]

Symbolizing atheism seems rather counterintuitive to me. We don't have a symbol for non-astrologers or non-alchemists, and we don't need a symbol of non-theists.

People invest way too much in symbols as it is.

[Bill O'Rights]

I am an atheist. Atheism defines not what I believe in, but rather what I don't believe in. Atheism is not a religion (contrary to the assertations of others), nor is it an organization. It requires no banners, symbols or heraldry to march beneath.

[QuasiMondo]

No symbol for atheism is required nor desired. Religion works hard enough trying to seperate itself from others as it is, why would any atheist want to follow in those footsteps?

[MexicanOnABike]

haha! seriously? anyone who needs to show off that they're atheist needs help!

[Willravel]

Atheism is a lack of something. I don't need a symbol for not being Chinese or not being left handed, so why would I need one for not being Christian or Jewish?

No, thank you.

Originally Posted by Redlemon

I recognize it: it's a fermata.



"A fermata (or hold or pause, or colloquially a birdseye) is an element of musical notation indicating that the note should be sustained for longer than its note value would indicate."

I don't see how that relates to atheism.

We hold on to our scientific beliefs?

[Jinn]

I have always liked this image and I think it would act perfectly as an atheist symbol - in a smaller format, perhaps, just the trash can with other religious symbols contained within would suffice.

Those of you who said you were atheist and didn't need a symbol, what about this one? I don't particularly need it, but it symbolizes what I really feel - that we're better off not clouding our minds with delusion of any sort, religious or not.

[Willravel]

Most atheists have a live and let live philosophy, though, so that symbol (that seems disrespectful) wouldn't represent most atheists.

[filtherton]

I think it would make more sense if the logo for atheism was literally nothing. Like this:

[Etarip]

Department of Veteran's Affairs symbol for headstones:
(source)


Quote:
The atheistic "atomic whirl" symbol was designed in 1963 as a way of "recognizing the new atomic era but emphasizing the truth of older scientific findings," explains Joe Zamecki, an employee of American Atheist, a national atheist organization.

[Jinn]

Most atheists have a live and let live philosophy, though, so that symbol (that seems disrespectful) wouldn't represent most atheists.

Care to provide a citation for "most"? Or is this just one of the 63% of statistics made up on the spot? How do you have ANY idea what is representative of the population of atheists? You and the number of members on this board that you can count? Or is it just your "feeling," based on nothing substantive at all?

[Willravel]

Most atheists I know, and I know several thousand. I'm a member of several atheist forums, which include hundreds of members each. If you have access to any other statistics, I'd like to see them. Otherwise, I'll take my count as the best idea of the numbers available.

[Jinn]

It's a bit ridiculous to assume that you know each individual's opinion of "live and let live" when talking about more than about a dozen people.

I've met and talked to thousands of Christians in my life (easy, as they're the majority) but I wouldn't dare claim to know their opinion on the "live and let live" paradigm.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

It's a bit ridiculous to assume that you know each individual's opinion of "live and let live" when talking about more than about a dozen people.

We've had threads on it. A vast majority of the atheists think it's better to leave religious people to their own devices and only speak up when they start subjugating us.


I'm doing the best with the information available to me. Again, if you have any statistics, please share them.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

How about the circle with the slash and nothing in it?

[Val_1]

Originally Posted by willravel

Atheism is a lack of something. I don't need a symbol for not being Chinese or not being left handed, so why would I need one for not being Christian or Jewish?

I don't really see Atheism as being the lack of anything. We're not Atheists because we don't have the ability to believe in theisms. We're Atheists because we choose to question.

Still, don't see the point in a symbol aside from meeting other "club members" on the street. I've already found my special secular someone, so I'm good in that department.

[filtherton]

Here we go, this is perfect:




It screams, "Watch out motherfucker, we'll cut you," which is pretty badass.

[Nimetic]

Aha. Hey yeah. Well spotted.

I'd suggest an iconified magnifying glass.

Point being - simply that a person should question things, look at them closely etc. I guess this might not satisfy the "strong atheists", those who actively wave a red flag at all religious types though.

Still - it'd make a point, and it'd promote a universally positive habit. I'm assuming that most atheists have similar concerns about astrology, homeopathy, simplified ideologies and so on (nationalism, communism, fascism, other isms). That magnifying glass questions them all. Even atheism itself I'd hope.

I was thinking a telescope for a second. But I like the magnifying glass more. It reminds me of Sherlock Holmes for one. And more kids globally would have a magnifier toy than have a telescope I'd think. Ie its simpler and um, cuter.

[Baraka_Guru]

I think a symbol wouldn't work since athiesm is merely a viewpoint, not a philosophical system in itself. There are already symbols for atheist philosophical systems, including Buddhism, humanism, and communism.

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by willravel

We've had threads on it. A vast majority of the atheists think it's better to leave religious people to their own devices and only speak up when they start subjugating us.


I'm doing the best with the information available to me. Again, if you have any statistics, please share them.

That's interesting because I get the opposite; that atheists look to bash or more aptly, "trash" religions much in the manner of Jinn Kai. To me, he is more of the norm.

[Willravel]

Well, that's one common part of the phase of moving out of religion. I went through a religion bashing phase myself that one could chronicle through my post history. It's very similar to the twelve steps program used by people who are addicts (though I won't conclusively say religion is addictive, I think most people can recognize similar characteristics). The first step is that one is powerless against god, and that is a bad thing. This step is often the longest and has a great effect on the person's understanding of both faith and the faithful. The disillusionment often leads to anger and resentment, which is more anger at self for being manipulated than anger at others for accidentally or purposefully manipulating. People lash out at religion using their new found perception of religion or faith. This is what a lot of people think of atheism: people who are angry at god or angry at the church. And it's true, a great many atheists can get stuck in the first step for a long time or even indefinitely. The problem, as I see it, is that this creates an unhealthy relationship with people basically on the singular topic of philosophy, which is really something one should put into perspective. Most atheists have friends or family members who are theists, and if your religious disillusionment leads to creating a rift between you and those you love, it's not healthy at all. Long term resentment could mean anxiety and anger, and these things can even manifest physically (heart disease, for example). As a liberal, I imagine it was easier for me because liberals have a higher ability for acceptance (but that's a different conversation). I don't have to approve of something to accept it. The second step is realizing the power of either self or science or reason, or some combination of those concepts, can be more powerful than the concept of god or religion. The third step is the active step away from god and turn your dedication towards something else as a central focus, like family, study, self, etc.

Okay, it's only three steps, but I feel like it's important to go through them all. There might be like 9 more steps, and I'm only at step 3, so I'll let you know if I find anything else.

[Lak]

Wow, so many posts... I thought I'd get like... 4.

Let me start by saying that I totally understand the position that a lot of you hold (as I expected) that because atheism is not a religion, it shouldn't have a symbol. "My atheism doesnt define me" sums it up pretty well, and naturally, Bill O Rights nailed it right the fuck on the nose (nice one Bill).
I understand these views, I do, but I feel like I need something else. Perhaps it is a sign of my own immaturity that I feel threatened/pressured at this time, but I feel the need to be more outspoken about my position. I get highly, highly offended when someone attempts to force their worldview on me, and I guess the idea of giving them some of thier own medicine appeals to me. Not necessarily because I wish to force my view as they would to me, which would be painfully hypocritical, because I definitely stand for religious freedom - what I'm standing up to is not religious people, but religious people infringing on the rights of non-religious/heteroreligious people. At least, thats what I think I think.
Does that seem childish to you? It seems childish when I write it. Hmmm.

[cyrnel]

Originally Posted by Lak

"My atheism doesn't define me."

That wouldn't make a bad bumper sticker, t-shirt, whatever.

Any simple symbol would only serve as a rallying point for those you already threaten. That seems counterproductive.

[Lak]

Another good way to look at it Cyrnel. Seems I've had nothing but mature, well thought-out responses with excellent reasoning. Jeez, way to diffuse my frustration guys. Its obvious that the cons for stickering one's self an atheist outweigh the pros, so, I shall stay comfortably blank.

Originally Posted by jorgelito

That's interesting because I get the opposite; that atheists look to bash or more aptly, "trash" religions much in the manner of Jinn Kai. To me, he is more of the norm.

I think this is roughly the group referred to earlier in this thread as 'new atheists'. I can understand where these people are coming from also. When I walk past the weekly street-corner megaphone chap on saturday night, spouting bible passages and advising passersby that they're going to hell, well, I really just want to go and ruin his day.

UPDATE: Oh snap! I notice CSFilm has the invisible pink unicorn as his avatar. Interesting, I would love if he would comment.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by willravel

[...] The first step is that one is powerless against god, and that is a bad thing. [...] The second step is realizing the power of either self or science or reason, or some combination of those concepts, can be more powerful than the concept of god or religion. The third step is the active step away from god and turn your dedication towards something else as a central focus, like family, study, self, etc.

These steps are sensible and explain how Buddhism is essentially atheistic in practice.

[Jinn]

That's interesting because I get the opposite; that atheists look to bash or more aptly, "trash" religions much in the manner of Jinn Kai. To me, he is more of the norm.

While I appreciate your agreement, I never said that I (nor anyone else) seek to bash or "trash" religion(s). I only questioned Will's out-of-thin-air statistic about "most" atheists. I'm a skeptic more than an atheist, so I always question sweeping generalizations, even if they're positive towards my world view.

I've nothing against religion, nor do I necessarily disagree with the live-and-let-live philosophy, so you're quite mistaken.

[...] It's very similar to the twelve steps program used by people who are addicts (though I won't conclusively say religion is addictive, I think most people can recognize similar characteristics). The first step is that one is powerless against god, and that is a bad thing. This step is often the longest and has a great effect on the person's understanding of both faith and the faithful. The disillusionment often leads to anger and resentment, which is more anger at self for being manipulated than anger at others for accidentally or purposefully manipulating. [...] And it's true, a great many atheists can get stuck in the first step for a long time or even indefinitely.

And will, you might reconsider your view of those with a strong distaste for religion as being in a "lesser" phase than yourself, because it's quite a slippery slope. You imply that vehement disagreement with religion and not obeying the "live and let live" doctrine is lesser by numbering your states, implying that one must follow the next. For all you know, being 'live and let live' is only a preliminary stage before really becoming actualized, where you move in a more aggressive manner against religion.

They're in a different state, with a different point of view, but that does not imply progression from theirs to yours, unless you truly believe yourself to be the ideal that all atheists should strive towards. Otherwise, you come off negatively towards anyone who despises religion yet still maintains healthy relationships - you're telling them that they're not fully "matured" yet, and it's nothing short of holier-than-thou condescension.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

And will, you might reconsider your view of those with a strong distaste for religion as being in a "lesser" phase than yourself, because it's quite a slippery slope.

I didn't intend to imply they are in a lesser phase, just a different one. Maybe I shouldn't have numbered the steps. I was more explaining my own transformation when I was assigning them an order.

[debaser]

Who the fuck advertises for Atheism?

:wtf:

[Willravel]

Oh yeah, I remember seeing the invisible pink unicorn as a symbol here and there. I don't like it, but a lot of people view it as a symbol for atheism:

[Plan9]

I think we should let Flava Flav decide.

[Invalid Comfort]

Originally Posted by Crompsin

I think we should let Flava Flav decide.

I knew that clock around his neck had to stand for something!

I agree with many of you, having a simple for something that's nothing is counter-productive. It would be nice is those religious folk (I've lived in the bible belt for the majority of my life) kept it too themselves. I've been there, done that, and bought the t-shirt.

[Denman]

This is the symbol for humanism, which basically is a set of secular beliefs about how to treat your fellow man (and woman). Humanism rejects things that can't be proven and places its faith in reasoning, facts, and logic as apposed to deities and the supernatural. In other words, it's a set of beliefs for atheists.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Denman

This is the symbol for humanism, which basically is a set of secular beliefs about how to treat your fellow man (and woman). Humanism rejects things that can't be proven and places its faith in reasoning, facts, and logic as apposed to deities and the supernatural. In other words, it's a set of beliefs for atheists.

This convinces me of what I thought all along: athiesm needs a symbol as much as theism does. It doesn't make sense to me. If you want to be an atheist and have a cool symbol, you will need to refine your beliefs and choose something less generic than: "I don't believe in deities." Be an atheist who's also a humanist, Marxist, Buddhist, whatever; just choose something that works for you. Blend it if you want. Don't automatically think you have a unique set of values that cannot be defined. It's likely you have beliefs borrowed from one or more philosophy/value system whether they are religious or non-religious. Relate to one of them and bask in their symbol's coolness.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

This convinces me of what I thought all along: athiesm needs a symbol as much as theism does. It doesn't make sense to me. If you want to be an atheist and have a cool symbol, you will need to refine your beliefs and choose something less generic than: "I don't believe in deities." Be an atheist who's also a humanist, Marxist, Buddhist, whatever; just choose something that works for you. Blend it if you want. Don't automatically think you have a unique set of values that cannot be defined. It's likely you have beliefs borrowed from one or more philosophy/value system whether they are religious or non-religious. Relate to one of them and bask in their symbol's coolness.

My dad is a pastor. His belief in god is part of what defines him as a person... a big part. When he puts on his clerics and his big ass Celtic cross on a chain, it's about announcing his life dedication to worship and spreading the word and all that jazz.

I'm an atheist, but it doesn't define me. It's a very small part of a whole. I'm happy being an atheist, but atheism to an atheist isn't necessarily going to be humungus like theism to a theist. I don't pray to Galapagos finches before I eat dinner. I don't spend every Sunday studying for several hours the facets of atheism. They really are apples and oranges, in my mind. Atheists really are only preachy when they're new, maybe the first few years out of theism. Unless you're Richard Dawkins. My own preachyness has died down recently.

Symbols are cool and all, but I'd rather have a symbol that says "Loving Father" or "Devoted Friend" instead of "Humanist?" or "Atheist".

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm an atheist, but it doesn't define me. It's a very small part of a whole. I'm happy being an atheist, but atheism to an atheist isn't necessarily going to be humungus like theism to a theist. I don't pray to Galapagos finches before I eat dinner. I don't spend every Sunday studying for several hours the facets of atheism. They really are apples and oranges, in my mind.

It's true that symbols are often overrated. Although I agree with you that atheism in itself isn't a defining belief, other beliefs are. Not many would say, "Hey, I'm a humanist; See? Check out my symbol." Yet, I would argue that many fall under such a category, mainly because humanism is itself a broad system that pulls in various elements, including atheism, scientific skepticism, and the scientific method, while retaining a kind of optimism and focus on the potential of the human race. Does this define you in any way?

People like to think they escape categorization because they don't want to appear dogmatic. But what tends to happen is that they get categorized in some way, regardless. This is how the human mind works. We have a way of defining everything, especially when it comes to ourselves.

[Plan9]

Humans need symbols to put their world in order.