…and this is a 
Come out!
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: July 28, 2007 8:35 PM, by PZ Myers
A while back, I floated the idea of a logo for the godless. There was a lot of enthusiasm for the idea, and a lot of good design ideas came out of it … maybe too many good ideas. And being a mob of atheists, there was absolutely no consensus on what was the best symbol to use. Finally, I didn't want to impose a logo on anyone, so I just let it drop to see if anyone would simply start using one of the suggested designs, that maybe a consensus might coalesce. I saw a few of the logos on scattered sites, but there wasn't much of a spontaneous response, and alas, every single site used a different logo. Typical atheists.
Now, though, there is one possible option: the RDF has started the Out Campaign, an effort to get atheists to publicly and proudly declare their status. It has a slightly different meaning — it's not exactly a symbol of atheism, but more a symbol of the willingness to come out about your disbelief — but it's nice, it's simple, it's clean. It's a simple red Zapfino "A", the scarlet letter.
Go ahead, use it. I've got one on the sidebar to testify to my openness about my ideas of the nature of the universe, we should all spread it far and wide. I'll even make it easy for you: you can use this code to put one on your website, if you're one of us loud and proud atheists.
<div style="text-align:center"><a href="http://outcampaign.org/"><img src="http://pharyngula.org/images/scarlet_A.png" border="0" alt="image" width="143" height="122" /></a></div>
One weird thing about this development, though, is that it sure brings out the whiners and concern trolls. I'm a little bit surprised at the response at the Dawkins site, with far too many rushing to complain. You'll see two kinds of negative reactions.
The nay-sayers who complain that this is too much like Christianity, it's a uniform, it's Dawkins trying to enforce conformity. How ridiculous. It's a freakin' t-shirt or bumper sticker, not the High Holy Cathedral of the Sacred Letter A. You can wear it or you can skip it. You can use it to wipe the sweat off after a workout. You might wear it to a barbecue at the park. Wear it while you're doing the dishes. It's casual wear. It's a nice shirt that sends a straightforward message about your willingness to be unafraid, nothing more, with no other deep significance. It will not be part of the dress code.
The shrinking violets who complain that it's too bold, it's too in-your-face, it'll make us a target. Talk about missing the point: yes, it's supposed to be bold. You are supposed to be bold. Begging for a tiny little delicate bit of subtle embroidery on a shirt pocket means this movement is not for you. Don't wear the shirt. Don't put the bumper sticker on your car. Don't say a word — it's easy to pass as a Christian or a Muslim, you know.
Just don't try to claim that you're helping.
The Myers family ordered a few t-shirts, and my car will have the bumper sticker on it. We aren't afraid. Especially not to make such a trivial commitment.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
What if Christians start wearing the Scarlet Letter on the seat of their jeans as a sign of disrespect?
Horrors.
Posted by: inkadu | July 28, 2007 8:49 PM
Hmm, I severely tempted to make one of my very rare online purchases for one of them....
Posted by: Callandor | July 28, 2007 8:53 PM
Atheists could wear them on the seat of their jeans, too. We could also get toilet paper with the symbol printed on it, with no worries.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 28, 2007 8:59 PM
Complaint from "fr*aming" people in 5. . . 4. . . 3. . .
You know, a red letter would work pretty well with my moody color scheme.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 28, 2007 9:05 PM
The Christians have a backwards alpha, and the atheists now have the letter A. Harmony at last.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 28, 2007 9:05 PM
OK, but this is my last closet.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 28, 2007 9:08 PM
Er .... What is the license of the Zapfino One font?
Posted by: llewelly | July 28, 2007 9:10 PM
But the Christians have the alpha AND the omega! We'd be crushed in the bumper sticker war! Like the time Darwin Fish got eaten by Truth! Oh the humanity...
Posted by: inkadu | July 28, 2007 9:14 PM
The Zapfino™ Font Family is part of the Linotype Originals.
http://www.linotype.com/1175/zapfino-family.html
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 28, 2007 9:16 PM
I have a different negative reaction for you there... It's a frakin "A"! It looks way to boring, we need more whizbang decoration fuzzies!
Ahwell, guess it's pretty neat.
Posted by: halcy | July 28, 2007 9:18 PM
Looks good to me. First letter of the alphabet and clean and simple. LIKE it.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | July 28, 2007 9:21 PM
I like.
And it works for adulterers, too!
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 28, 2007 9:24 PM
It's a good idea, but the text below the "A" should be something more than RichardDawkins.net. That just makes it look like a promotion for his web site.
Either it should be the outcampaign.org URL, or better still, the slogan "STAND OUT", maybe with the campaign's URL on the back.
Posted by: tacitus | July 28, 2007 9:24 PM
Red does make objects stick out more than other colours.
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | July 28, 2007 9:36 PM
Well, being an atheist is all well and good, but it doesn't say really a whole lot about me. I prefer to label myself with my atheism as a secular humanist. I have thought about getting a tattoo with the atheist atom with the happy human in the center. I haven't found a logo online with this mix yet, but I hope to soon. Am I the only one that thinks that saying I'm an atheist just doesn't say enough?
Posted by: Jamie G. | July 28, 2007 9:37 PM
Not bad...
So how about a coffee mug?
Posted by: Higgs Boson | July 28, 2007 9:56 PM
The best part about putting this on my car (along with my bumper stickers that say "End
lessthis war," "Save the ugly animals, too!" and my Flying Spaghetti Monster emblem, is that putting it on my car doesn't make me a hypocrite.Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | July 28, 2007 9:56 PM
Thanks for the "heads up" and for providing the convenient code PZ. The atheist 'A' now proudly resides in the sidebar of my humble little publication as well.
Posted by: K. D. Cline | July 28, 2007 10:01 PM
Jamie --
How about a yellow smiley face with an "A" tatooed onto his forehead?
Posted by: inkadu | July 28, 2007 10:01 PM
Why am I suddenly reminded of both The Crucible and The Scarlet Letter?
Posted by: Stanton | July 28, 2007 10:05 PM
Very nice. Much better than the last round, which, though clever, looked too much like an attempt to extend the Zapf Dingbats typeface. This is elegant, a little funny, and a bit more artistic.
Posted by: mss | July 28, 2007 10:06 PM
It's more likely that the scarlet a will be useful for identifying other in-the-know atheists; I don't imagine 99.6% of the population will have any idea what it means.
Posted by: inkadu | July 28, 2007 10:12 PM
It looks sharp.
Now, I know this might sound presumptuous, but do you think that someone might tweak together a spinoff that reads 'Friend of A'? Because, you know, I am friendly: "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
Peace....SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | July 28, 2007 10:12 PM
I'll pass. I'm not one for message t-shirts that advertise things, and the addition of the richarddawkins.net in pretty bold letters (and it's also on the sleeve!) makes it more than just a personal statement of your lack belief in the magic man.
Instead it seems to say "I'm a RichardDawkins.net brand atheist", whatever that is. Actually, to most people you would just be claiming some affinity for RichardDawkins.net, since the meaning of the "A" is obscure.
Not that the red "A" is a bad symbol. If it was pocket sized and located where the pocket would be, and if it didn't have the ad ...
Posted by: Divalent | July 28, 2007 10:19 PM
Jamie G.,
I think the same. However, I think that since it's the atheism aspect of secular humanism and similar that (mainly) draws the ire of many of the religious it's good to proudly identify that we are, in addition to being adherents of our various ethical systems, atheists.
Posted by: M. Loftus | July 28, 2007 10:20 PM
I'm down with that.
(Much smaller one at http://accidentalweblog.org/images/scarlet_a_32_27.png if anyone bereft of image s/w is looking for such ... that red jumps outta my colour scheme more than well enough at 32 pixels high.)
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 28, 2007 10:29 PM
Jamie, how about this: don't get a tattoo at all.
This "A" is right up there with the last Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker for really lame graphics that look like they were done on a Mac circa 1992.
Posted by: cm | July 28, 2007 10:33 PM
Yo! Godfrey Temple!!!
Time to make a variation on Affinity, don'tcha think?!?
}:-)
Posted by: minusRusty | July 28, 2007 10:40 PM
I don't dislike Richard Dawkins, but I really don't feel like spending money to advertise for his website. Other than that, I think the t-shirt is pretty cool.
Posted by: Dave Carlson | July 28, 2007 10:48 PM
Lots of whining going on at Dawkins' site. Clearly the thought about visibly standing out from the theists makes some of those posters rather uncomfortable. A t-shirt with a red A on it is a lot less over-the-top than all the pagans I know who wear clothes, accessories, and visible tattoos with pentagrams, Thor's hammers, and goddess figures on a daily basis.
Posted by: Chayanov | July 28, 2007 10:50 PM
It's a nice shirt that sends a straightforward message about your willingness to be unafraid, nothing more, with no other deep significance.
A shirt that said "THERE IS NO GOD" on the back and "OUTSPOKEN ATHEIST" on the front would do that. This shirt gives you the chance to safely get away before the outspoken theists find out who Richard Dawkins is. :)
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | July 28, 2007 11:05 PM
Maybe it's a European thing or something, but for me a red, capital 'A' is already well and truly taken as a symbol for anarchism; you see it used with and without a red circle on graffitti and pamphlets in public spaces everywhere. A bit of "marketplace of ideas" prior-art searching might have been in order.
Posted by: Janne | July 28, 2007 11:12 PM
I'll add myself as one with the negative reactions that
1) It's not in-your-face enough, as the A could stand for Anything, and
2) While I like Richard Dawkins I don't feel the need to advertise his site particularly, especially since it is now distinct from the Richard Dawkins Foundation.
I may add the scarlet A logo to my site, but the t-shirt doesn't work for me. It's not like I don't have a drawer full of atheism-oriented t-shirts already, anyway.
Posted by: BT Murtagh | July 28, 2007 11:13 PM
At least a hammer & sickle looks looks cool... Wearing this large red letter A would make me feel like I was a Nathaniel Hawthorne fanboy, or something...
Posted by: K. Engels | July 28, 2007 11:28 PM
The biggest problem for me here is the same that I face with the Brights merch - it all looks terribly bad. I'd be willing to support the cause, and I'm far from shy about any of my beliefs, but I don't want to look like a cheap schlub while I'm doing it.
For instance, remove the damned URL. You might as well be printing it across a meshback cap. If it's going to look that bad, I have to avoid it merely on the principle that it's not aesthetically pleasing.
But thanks for the repository of atheist logos - I'll probably take one of them over to customink.com or spreadshirt.com, and construct something I can consider wearing outside my home.
Posted by: James Stein | July 28, 2007 11:28 PM
Janne got there first, but yeah... hasn't anyone here seen the Anarchist symbol? Not only an "A", but a red "A" (circled)?
http://www.anarchism.net/symbol.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism
Wiki dates it back to 1868 or so. Gotta try harder. Personally I like the other end of the alphabet, except it doesn't naturally tie in with anything godless and rational. Still, all the cool bad boy letters are there.... Z for Zorro, V for Vendetta...
Posted by: foldedpath | July 28, 2007 11:33 PM
Added the image (and link) to my (pathetic little) website.
For those that don't like it, well fine.
I think Nathaniel Hawthorne's idea is a damned fine one, well worth co-opting. It's the red badge of courage. Wear it proudly. (Yeah, I know that's Stephen Crane, ancestor of Frasier and Niles Crane.)
Posted by: SteveC | July 28, 2007 11:49 PM
Meh. Boring. Why doesn't it say "Atheist" instead of richarddawkins.net? Or is that too much out for most people?
Posted by: Rien | July 28, 2007 11:50 PM
I decided to decorate my copy just a tad.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 28, 2007 11:51 PM
And while we're on the subject of scarlet "A"s, I knew I'd seen something very similar to that logo before ...
http://shop.mlb.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2441028
(I know, I know ... different font. Makes the Dawkins shirt look like a cheap knock-off, though.)
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | July 28, 2007 11:53 PM
Are there no atheists in non-english speaking countries? It's not generic enough. A "symbol" is just that, a symbol for something else. A big red A is too literal and has meaning only in english.
Also, most of the complaint a lot of people have with religion is with religion. So I'd rather see the red circle with a slash over the universally recognized symbols of religion. Hard to embroider though. ;-/
Posted by: TW | July 29, 2007 12:13 AM
minusRusty,
I'm all over it.
Share and enjoy.
Posted by: Godfrey Temple | July 29, 2007 12:23 AM
I'll make some "A" necklaces if anyone wants them. People might think that's one of your initials or something, though. You probably should've gone with the "no" symbol over a cross, because let's face it, that's the only religion you care about being against.
Posted by: DSM | July 29, 2007 12:27 AM
PharyngulA?
I still think ∀ is distinguishable from the anarchist symbol, and symbolizes putting all traditional theist worldviews on their head. Also, it's use in logics is "for all". :-P
But it has better chances than the term "Bright" has. We will see how it plays out.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 29, 2007 12:29 AM
Um, the "it" that has better chances is the new Zapfino proposal, obviously.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 29, 2007 12:31 AM
I still prefer the null set symbol - both graphically and symbolically...
∅
Posted by: Dale | July 29, 2007 12:48 AM
You stupid ass cats. Go that way! Herding is a real pain the ass. The Dawkins has spoken. Do as you are told!
Posted by: Tatarize | July 29, 2007 12:59 AM
I find the size of the A rather obnoxious, and the big url totally classless.
If you want to be bold about it, why not actually say what the A stands for? Most people passing you on the street won't know.
Personally I think the Darwin fish with legs communicates way better. On the one hand it is slightly mocking, but it also is funny enough that it is disarming.
I think people should keep working to come up with a logo that actually is effective.
Posted by: rob | July 29, 2007 1:02 AM
I, for one, am proud to display this on my blog. I am not concerned that people won't know what it means. I'll know what it means, and other atheists will know what it means.
The key is to raise alarum through the Christian sites, and soon it will be as recognizable as a pentagram, as a symbol of fear and loathing. The Richarddawkins.net thing is okay, too, as his book really raised the level of conversation (to a din, sure, but raised) for atheism over the last year or so.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 29, 2007 1:02 AM
It sounds like we'll never all agree on a common symbol. There are other symbols that have been previously mentioned that would have been good as well.
The classy "A" works for me. I just ordered my t-shirt. I'm willing to proudly wear it, and I live in a very conservative rural town.
Posted by: Paguroidea | July 29, 2007 1:13 AM
If you are comfortable with your life and your beliefs, you don't need a billboard in front of your house or a letter in your blog sidebar saying so. The deluded can keep slapping hawnk if you love jayzus on their bumpers. Just ignore them and keep along your silent path.
Posted by: letters | July 29, 2007 1:15 AM
Nice idea, but my enthusiasm diminishes with each criticism (though granted Godfrey Temple's effort is much appreciated). Lack of uniqueness is a problem, a cross has only one meaning. The englishism is a problem too. This will be meaningless to a chinese atheist.
How about this: we like to remind the Christians that we believe in one less god than they do. So instead of an A, how about some artsie version of -1? Maybe a big red one with the negative line through it. Or maybe put a little negative one inside PZ's A. Sorry I'm not techie enough to make one, but surely someone here is.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 29, 2007 1:21 AM
You can wear it or not wear it, it doesn't matter -- then why is it so important to you? Will you recognise people by it or not? Will you use it or not? If so, then it's important, if not, then it isn't, so leave it.
I won't just pass, I won't just skip it, I'll ask you what you think you're doing and why. Are you forming a club that I'm not a member of, now? A Latin-alphabet-based club to whom the letter "A" is uniquely important? I want no part of it. Is there a split between Letterites and non-Letterites now? Am I now not one of you? Is your group better than mine? I didn't know I had one. I wear the Ogham symbol for "F" in Lincoln Green on a grey background, instead. Fancy a Crusade? What's the point of all this? Was the having-a-special-symbol-by-which-we-recognize-each-other the one part of childish religious stupidity you couldn't live without?
With your spiffy new logo, you can put it on the top of your headed notepaper and put a trademark symbol after it and you'll look almost like a church or other corporation. And you acknowledge that you have created a split by trumpeting about your new logo, and you've alienated and turned away your friends and allies because of your new logo, but you're still crowing about your new logo. Good job. Terrific. You must be proud. Keeps the focus where it belongs, eh? On the logo. Given that you shrill and squawk like John Knox or Increase Mather at the thought of people shaving their pubic hair or playing poker, I don't want to sign up for your whole package of views and I find your promulgation of a cultish symbol more than a little suspect.
And don't call me a bloody "Bright" either. I don't want a label, a logo, or a club to belong to. Most of us don't.
Posted by: ben | July 29, 2007 1:27 AM
I'm too sleepy to read all the comments, so it's probably already been said: My mother always warned me that someday I would be wearing a scarlet letter. At least it matches my first initial and I can pretend to be doing a retro "Laverne" thing. Oh screw it, I'm an ATHEIST and proud of it!
Posted by: Jazmin | July 29, 2007 1:38 AM
PZ's suggestion about toilet paper might have to be dropped, though.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | July 29, 2007 1:44 AM
Godfrey Temple:
Hmmm. I was thinking more along the lines of altering the red Zapfino "A" with the ∞. Though I understand th't that might reduce the reference to Lambda.
Posted by: minusRusty | July 29, 2007 1:49 AM
And don't call me a bloody "Bright" either. I don't want a label, a logo, or a club to belong to. Most of us don't.
Don't worry, after your little rant there, I can't imagine anyone calling you "Bright".
Posted by: Patrick | July 29, 2007 2:23 AM
ben wrote:
People do like to feel they belong to some larger group.
The logo didn't create any "split," whatever that means.
Exactly which friends and allies are turned away? Just you?
Shrill and squawk like John Knox or Increase Mather? Where the hell did that come from? I think you're getting delusional, Ben.
No, my only complaint -- you want me to spend $20.00 to advertise your website, Richard?
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 29, 2007 2:30 AM
If my Mommy and Daddy see the bumpersticker on my car, can I tell them it stands for "agnostic"?
Posted by: Zeno | July 29, 2007 2:42 AM
There is a *fantastic* monologue from Marcus Brigstocke in this week's edition of BBC Radio 4's 'The Now Show' in which he performs as an evangelical atheist. It's comedy, of course (and preceded in the monologue by a number of Britain-, BBC-, and Brigstocke-specific references), but the core atheist, humanist message is brilliantly delivered.
You can hear it by Realplayer through This Link.
Posted by: Warren Terra | July 29, 2007 2:53 AM
Dale, I prefer the alternate empty set symbol "{}".
For a clearer look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nullset.png
Or maybe a version of a mobius strip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MobiusSnail2B.png
Posted by: bernarda | July 29, 2007 2:55 AM
Only English? You seem to have overlooked French, Spanish, Dutch, German, Polish, Serbo-Croat, Turkish ...
Posted by: Stephen | July 29, 2007 3:15 AM
Whine, whine, whine people.
I'm not sure whether I actually want one of these T-shirts or not, but I think the logo looks great. I'd have preferred it without the URL, which is just a tiny bit tacky, but I love the scarlet letter symbol: it's meaningful at many levels and looks classy. I applaud the whole idea.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | July 29, 2007 3:50 AM
Ahhhhh! Fear the T Shirt of Division!
1) If you don't want to wear the T shirt with a big A on it, don't. It really isn't compulsory. There is no stigam for being a non-A wearer or an A wearer. Again just like with the "bright" thing, the motivation behind the label is what's important, reservations can be dealt with in the manner suggested below (and boy do I have reservations).
2) The point is not about herd behaviour (although as others have mentioned grouping is a natual part of human behaviour, for some people it might have this added benefit) the point is that a) atheists are, in some parts of the world, thought of by many as second class citiziens (or not even citizens at all). Openly acknowledging one's atheism is one way (by no means the only or even the best) to show that atheists are not some shadowy minority group, but real people (i.e. neighbours, friends, family) who are just as "normal" as everyone else except that they lack god belief. It's a stage on the road to acceptance and making the whole "problem" a non-issue, it's not the whole journey, and b) there is a general, social stigma against discussing religion rationally and submitting it to the same scrutiny that other ideas recieve (this is by no means universal, just very common). Openly acknowledging one's atheism in some overt fashion is one way (by no means the only or even the best) to generate discussion and to break this social "taboo". If this "taboo" is broken to a greater extent then we incrementally move away from pre-Enlightenment magical thinking as a society. Social change happens at the level of dinner party conversation, discussions between friends and in articles etc. Gradually the point gets through. Will it destroy religion? Is it meant to? No in both cases.
3) Alternative images, fonts, graphics and statements are all well and good. I can think of a couple of dozen right now. They aren't on the market, this is. This suggests four possible courses of action for those who don't like the shirt because the logo is crappy and hate the concept etc (as opposed to those merely discussing possible alternative logos/designs): a) see point 1) above, b) do something! It's hardly difficult to design a logo and send it to a cheap T-shirt printer and get your logo on a T-shirt vending site like cafe express (IIR the site correctly). It's also cheap as chips with the right T-shirt vendor. This approach has 2 advantages: i) the plurality of different symbols/fonts/graphics/logos all pointing in the SAME direction is a good illustration of the diversity of atheists, a good data point AGAINST the false charges of "atheism = just another religion" and "it's all groupthink", and ii) it might make you some cash. c) Join in, help or shut the fuck up! It's quite simple, either make a constructive helpful contribution (criticism is always welcome, everyone sensible learns from well thought out, rational, constructive criticism), don't join in (after all it isn't compulsory), or simply go away. Irrational, whiny sniping and bitching from the sidelines helps no one, if it isn't your thing, great! It isn't particularly mine either, but at least have the decency to say so sensibly and come up with a decent, rational criticism or alternative. "Waaaaaah I don't like it" or "Waaaaah Evil Dawkins gets a rake off" don't count. d) Support this project regardless of the quibbles you have with its design etc because you support the motivations behind it. I fall into d) btw, with a few ideas for b) I might put into practise.
So rather than an appeal for support of Dawkins' A campaign (which I support in principle, if not necessarily in concordant artistic tastes!) this is an appeal for rational dissent. The guy is trying to do something constructive, and it is THAT I support, and THAT which everyone should support. Not out of some group mentality or desire to herd but because this guy is actually doing something constructive and rather than whine from our comfy armchairs we should all be out doing something similar, ignoring him, supporting him, or offering constructive and useful criticism above the level of "DO NOT LIKE. WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!".
Oh and for those of us who are from the UK, these alternative T-shirts might suit your (and indeed my) tastes better.
National Secular Society Shop
Louis
Posted by: Louis | July 29, 2007 3:53 AM
Oh ARSE! The link didn't work. Her's the url:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/shop.html?category=merchandise%2F939
Louis
Posted by: Louis | July 29, 2007 3:55 AM
I guess while I applaud the effort, I'll be damned if I'll be pasting a Zapfino "A" with a drop shadow on anything I own, much less my own body (which belongs to the bank).
Is it too late to campaign for ITC Bauhaus Demi? It's clean, futuristic, readable, and if you squint the A kinda looks like a cross that's been bent in half.
Better yet, something in the Deutsche Gothic calligraphy line -- heavy, elaborate, and dangerously pointy-looking. An "A" you could grate hard cheese on.
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | July 29, 2007 4:16 AM
Well, having read a couple humdred comments on the subject here and at RichadDawkins.net, I've changed my mind. I'm going to buy one of these to support the Richard Dawkins Foundation, if for no other reason, and besides I can wear it in my less confrontational moods.
I also like Louis's suggestion in #64, and I'll be designing a few similar-but-different versions with the same basic concept but more precisely to my taste.
Posted by: BT Murtagh | July 29, 2007 6:36 AM
I can see the point of letters #51, but I think that it is important for people to see that there are indeed atheists out there. Most conservative Christians will assume that anyone who is a "nice" person must love Jesus - I didn't think I knew a single atheist when I was growing up, and of course I must have. With that mindset, it's very easy for them to swallow the line about atheists all being little Stalins-in-training, because they don't think they have any counterexamples. Advertising your own atheism now and then does serve a greater good of at least making theists realize that not everyone agrees with them, and a lot of "those" people are perfectly normal.
Posted by: Carlie | July 29, 2007 6:57 AM
What am I supposed to do? I don't wear T-shirts. They don't have pockets for all my pens & other stuff.
Seriously though, I wish we didn't have so many ways of describing ourselves. Mostly, (if you're an Atheist of the philosophically inclined sort, not the feckless 'god's for sissies' punk type), then Atheist, Bright, Humanist, Rationalist, Secularist, all fit the bill. To religionists, only 'Atheist' probably conveys something meaningful, but it's a negative term. 'Bright' conveys something positive, but it's probably not very well known by none-atheists. Maybe that's the one that we should promote, on the grounds that it might catch on, just like 'gay' did for homosexuals, with positive consequences?
Posted by: Richard harris, FCD | July 29, 2007 7:12 AM
My only concern is that someone might think I'm a fan of that Nathanial Hawthorne novel and not an athiest...
Posted by: hooptyhoo | July 29, 2007 7:19 AM
As Dawkins himself said: "Organising atheists has been compared to herding cats, for the obvious reason that they are intelligent and independent-minded."
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2007/04/12/darwins_rottweiler_looks_to_round_up_britains_atheists.html
I think it's that very disdain for uniformism and jumping the bandwagon which backfires against this project...
Posted by: forsen | July 29, 2007 7:35 AM
I've got one on the sidebar
Uh, no you don't.
Posted by: Ivor the Engine Driver | July 29, 2007 8:26 AM
I agree with some of the other posts here. The addition of the richarddawkins.net thing makes it unacceptable to me. I'm happy to stand out, and it's an OK emblem, I like Dawkins, but I don't pay to advertise for others.
Posted by: Dahan | July 29, 2007 9:02 AM
I'm afraid I have to concur with the dissenting view. First, having "RichardDawkins.net" on the T-shirts puts this on the same level as Golden Palace; is the message you're an atheist or an advertisement for Dawkins?
As for the use of the letter "A" - it's so ubiquitous it's almost meaningless. As several have stated it could be interpreted to mean adulterer (not something I want to be associated with), anarchist (ditto) or an Atlanta Braves fan (ditto). Let's also not forget that "A" is the symbol used by Atom Ant and Captain America (although he had it on his forehead like Inkidu's happy face).
I give Dawkins an "A" for effort but I think it fails in the advertisement A-rena.
Posted by: Todd | July 29, 2007 9:33 AM
I know, just so we don't get called another "religion" by theists, why don't we all wear the same clothes, boots, caps so that we can exert a political presence. Oh, and call ourselves the Dawkins' Youth.
Or... accept that atheism isn't a group movement, but a dismissal of bad thinking about the supernatural and the world.
Hell, I'm not afraid to be an atheist. I'd rather wear a t-shirt saying "Jesus Shags Dinosaurs" than this nonsense.
It's just the Bright movement in disguise, anyway. I'm with Christopher Hitchens on this one... the Bright movement is just nonsense.
Posted by: Wrought | July 29, 2007 9:40 AM
Is that how you feel about we atheist bloggers who remain anonymous because we live in the American bible belt and fear for our safety - that we're not helping? I sincerely hope not.
Posted by: vjack | July 29, 2007 9:47 AM
I will be getting one. I'm not worried about what it may or may not do/say. I get so tired of seeing misguided fundies wearing their jesus t-shirts. At least now i'll be able to counter. Plus, I think the blue one will go great with my baby blues.
Posted by: Firemancarl | July 29, 2007 9:49 AM
Thoughts:
1) If you don't want to pay to advertise Richard Dawkins' website, why not make your own shirt with a paintbrush?
2) This idea actually seems a far cry from the "Bright" deal, because quite plainly, it's not afraid of the A-word.
3) We're not going to see Pharyngula merchandise, are we? I would go out of my way to wear (say) a T-shirt with a zebrafish embryo on the front and the words "GODLESS. LIBERAL. BIOLOGY." superimposed atop it.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 29, 2007 9:53 AM
Hmmmm...that's a tempting idea. Marketing my web site? Has anyone else in the history of the world ever done that?
Maybe I should doodle up something on CafePress. Is everyone going to get peeved if it says "http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula" on it?
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 29, 2007 10:16 AM
No, they just won't wear them.
This is the age of online search engines. Just putting the name 'Pharyngula' out there, in association with your name, will be enough for people to find the site.
Better to put more content on the shirts that will get people interested enough to look for it, than to take up space giving people the means to get here that they already possess.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 29, 2007 10:23 AM
Atheist is spelled with an A in Turkish? Huh. Anyway, I still don't think people as a whole will concede the letter. Heck even in English it's one of only a handful of vowels. It would really shred the holy books to cut them all out. Hey, wait a minute...
Posted by: TW | July 29, 2007 10:23 AM
It's only going to confuse believers more. The whole point of atheism is that we are not on THEIR team, not that we atheists are a team.
Posted by: plunge | July 29, 2007 10:31 AM
Atheist is spelled with an A in Turkish?
There are some words in Turkish that mean atheist that do not begin with A, but there is also a 'borrowed' word, ateist, that is used.
Posted by: K. Engels | July 29, 2007 10:46 AM
PZ,
I think Pharyngula merchandise would be great - as long as you spelled everything out so there was no ambiguity.
If you do an "A" shirt be sure to put it in front of "GODLESS, LIBERAL BIOLOGIST"
I agree with Caledonian - don't put the link on them so people will get curious and look it up.
Posted by: Todd | July 29, 2007 10:49 AM
I am an atheist, but I'm not wearing no fuckin A.
Why not a symbol for No Santa, No Unicorns, No Tooth Fairy?
By drawing attention to something that isn't real, it gives the believers strength in believing.
Atheists aren't a 'team' that is against religious folks, we ARE on THEIR side. We just want them to see the truth.
You're causing a division when we should be uniting. It's hard for folks to accept that they've been wasting their time every Sunday all their lives, if you divide into 'teams' it'll just embolden them to their beliefs. THey love the idea that they are 'crusaders' or are being persecuted/put down for their 'God'.
Posted by: Jeffy | July 29, 2007 10:51 AM
Below, PZ wrote about atheism and civil rights concerns, and here he brings back the notiono of the closet and visibility as social movement activities. In the earlier post, he made a comparison to gay movements that continues here in the use of closet. I think there are similarities, although weak ones, beyond these.
One of the things Dawkins and PZ are trying to do here is start a social movement. They would be in the phase directly preceding gay liberation, if we were to draw an analogy. They're the early folks who decided to push the homophile movement out of the closet and into its first, tentative, public actions. They're the radicals moving the window and making it easier for others to come out, both by example and by creating social spaces where being out becomes less stigmatized.
Part of the problem in the movement sense is that the target--religious belief--doesn't lend itself to civil rights claims, although the state very definitely favors the religious over the non. The openness more closely resembles liberationist action of simply claiming public space as ours to occupy. That was a radical claim for queers to make (still is a lot of the time) and in most parts of society, it's still a radical claim for atheists to make. (it's a little reminiscent of those "we are everywhere" buttons. We had some made up for Mpls Pride one year that said "We are everywhere--even Mankato."
Posted by: MAJeff | July 29, 2007 11:10 AM
instead of the richarddawkins.net advertisment, why not tagline the graceful character with something like,
"because you can't be a part-time rationalist"...
...or something more clever?
Po