…and this is a 
Atheism Symbol
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: August 11, 2008 9:49 AM, by PZMinion
Fellow minion Sastra checking in...
You know, whenever things get dull among atheists, there are a few surefire topics to spark some conversation. You can always do the atheism vs. agnosticism debate, of course. That's usually good for hours. Free Will perks at least some people up. But bring up a symbol for atheism ...
And here it is!
(Forgive me if the image is not quite clean, I'm still figuring this blogging thing out.)
Some of you may remember that last year I was thrown out of several print shops and refused service for ordering a poster which had to do with voting for an atheist symbol. They were "Christians" (ie true Christians), and therefore couldn't deal with atheism or atheists. Ah, well. The prerogative of a free society and private business. The poster was eventually made, however, and at the Atheist Alliance International convention in Washington DC, the attendees (which included Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett) cast their votes between 6 candidates.
I am only showing the 'winner.' Because I know what many of you are doing. You're going to tell the rest of us about this other symbol. A different one. Which you like better.
Unless, of course, you are preparing to explain why atheists should not have a symbol at all.
Frankly, I've probably already seen the symbol (or something very like it), or heard the reasoned rationale for none at all. The committee looked at hundreds, from sources all over the internet, as well as submissions.
We also considered the arguments against a symbol. Though I'm somewhat sympathetic, I think the problem is moot. Bottom line, a designated symbol of some sort is eventually going to come up from grass roots and become popular, because there is need to identify a group which no longer wishes to remain ignored or marginalized. Yes, the "group" is diverse and technically defined only by a negative - but, contra Sam Harris, the word 'atheist' is pragmatically useful, and used, and words themselves are symbols for things.
And if there is going to be a symbol anyway, all things considered, it should be one that offends and bothers the LEAST number of atheists possible. That's a very tough standard indeed.
This particular symbol was designed and released to public domain by Michigan graphic artist and retired schoolteacher Diane Reed. It's simple, positive, unique, and attractive. The circle represents the natural universe, the point is the inquiring mind, and the resemblance to the Latin "A" is both a nod to the language of science, and to the necessity of having some easily graspable connection to "atheism." It doesn't imply that atheists believe in nothing; it doesn't confuse the issue with evolution; and it doesn't stick a gratuitous finger in any religion's eye. You could tattoo it on your arm, dangle it from a necklace, and draw it in the sand with a stick. It's identifiable in any color, and identified with no specific person. And it gets along nicely with whatever other symbol you prefer, because you either like it, or you don't.
And that's that.
Comments
Posted by: Oz | August 11, 2008 10:31 AM
Think you could forward this to the VA so that atheist veterans don't have to use the American Atheists symbol on their graves?
Posted by: D | August 11, 2008 10:32 AM
So atheists are actually star fleet officers....
Posted by: Aaron | August 11, 2008 10:33 AM
You fool!
We aren't the "Atheist Alliance" we're the "The Alliance of Atheists"! THAT is the most logical!
(if you don't get this-- you need to catch up on your south park. :P)
Posted by: John Bode | August 11, 2008 10:35 AM
Looks vaguely Star Trek-y. Not wholly unattractive (unlike the symbol Oz refers to above, which is just plain awful).
I don't plan on using it, though; I'm one of the people who feels that atheism needs no symbols.
Posted by: co | August 11, 2008 10:35 AM
I like it. However,
The circle represents the natural universe, the point is the inquiring mind, and the resemblance to the Latin "A" is both a nod to the language of science, and to the necessity of having some easily graspable connection to "atheism."
is just so much woo.
Posted by: freelunch | August 11, 2008 10:35 AM
We should commandeer the @ sign and persuade the loons that using e-mail is proof that they are atheists.
Posted by: Greg Esres | August 11, 2008 10:36 AM
Does anyone else find this sort of mysticism amusing in an atheist symbol? Can't we just draw a pretty picture without assigning arbitrary meanings to design features?
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 11, 2008 10:37 AM
I like it more than the other one. More interesting and stylish, less generic.
Could see myself with a tatoo like this. I'm more of an agnostic, but it doesn't matter, also starts with A.
But still prefer the colour red.
Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2008 10:37 AM
It does look kind of like an "at" sign. What I do like about it is that it could be made from a single piece of metal without soldering, which would make lapel pins hella cool.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 11, 2008 10:39 AM
The Star Wars geek in me says... eww.. Star Trek.
Schism!
And designers always have to assign meanings to their visual choices, there's no mysticism about it.
Posted by: Deepsix | August 11, 2008 10:40 AM
Why do symbols always need to have some deeper meaning? How about, "We came up with this symbol because "A" stands for "atheist", and it looks cool".
Posted by: James Mc | August 11, 2008 10:40 AM
that's quite funny...starfleet officers.
Would I wear it from a necklace? meh...tattoo it...meh...maybe I'll just construct a big steel structure and erect it on my front lawn
Posted by: Epinephrine | August 11, 2008 10:41 AM
To quote the great MPatHG,
"Well, I didn't vote for you!"
This isn't the atheist symbol, it's the symbol voted on by the attendees of the Atheist Alliance convention.
At best it's the symbol for the Atheist Alliance, but I certainly don't plan on adopting it. My red "A" from the Out Campaign is something that I wear happily, and it wasn't touted as the "atheist's symbol" - I choose to wear it as I like the message it sends.
I don't think that the Atheist Alliance convention attendees have any right to decide on a symbol for anyone but themselves.
Posted by: Greg Esres | August 11, 2008 10:43 AM
Really??? Who says so?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 11, 2008 10:43 AM
There ain't no more mysticism in saying "the circle represents the natural universe" than there is in saying "the fifty stars represent the fifty states". It's not an attempt to control the natural universe at large, only a choice made by the graphic designer intended to provoke a certain kind of contemplation in the viewer.
Posted by: molecanthro | August 11, 2008 10:44 AM
I'd have to agree with John Bode (#4)...though I'd go a bit further in saying that it doesn't look 'vaguely' Star Trek-y...rather, it looks very Star Trek-y.
Now I'm a bit of a sci-fi geek, so that doesn't bother me at all...and perhaps those who aren't geekified won't see the similarity so it won't matter.
Posted by: friar-zero | August 11, 2008 10:45 AM
I'm still partial to the American Atheists "atomic A".
Posted by: Whateverman | August 11, 2008 10:45 AM
Greg #7 wrote:
At first glance, I think I agree with you. On the other hand, if you're going to have a symbol in the first place, it should mean something. And one of the most annoying (and utterly false) accusations I read is that "atheists don't believe in anything".
Even though it's a bit over the top, I like the notion that reason and science are somehow embedded in it.
If I was an atheist, I probably wouldn't display the symbol very much; symbols generally over simplify complex issues. And if there was ever a group too diverse to be called "a group", I think it would be atheists.
By the same token, I wouldn't display the cross if I were a Christian either.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 11, 2008 10:46 AM
People, please! You're getting this all backwards. This is where the Star Trek symbol comes from, because in the future, the Federation will be founded by atheists!
Posted by: Dutch Delight | August 11, 2008 10:47 AM
@Greg Esres and Co
Symbolism =! Mysticism
Frankly I don't see how you could mistake the two, so maybe I'm missing something.
Posted by: Sigmund | August 11, 2008 10:47 AM
It looks like the bastard child of an unholy threesome of the 'Star Trek', 'Nike' and '@' symbols!
Posted by: Chris | August 11, 2008 10:47 AM
Wait, do us Agnostics have a symbol?
Posted by: Rob | August 11, 2008 10:48 AM
IMO it looks too much like the anarchy symbol.
Posted by: Seamyst | August 11, 2008 10:52 AM
Rob @ #23:
I agree with you there. And it's also very reminiscent of the Wiccan pentacle.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 11, 2008 10:52 AM
Hey, could we get this printed on crackers? Moo hoo ha ha!
Posted by: Peter | August 11, 2008 10:53 AM
The agnostic symbol could be a fence with someone bending over backwards on it.
Posted by: Trykt | August 11, 2008 10:53 AM
@Chris
Yes, it's the same thing just in a dotted line.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 11, 2008 10:53 AM
The clients want to know why you made choices.
Very few designers can get away with "Because I like it and it looks good."
Posted by: Aaron | August 11, 2008 10:54 AM
Haven't people realized that trying to get all Atheists to stand under one unified umbrella is like herding cats?
Our diversity is both a metaphorical blessing and a curse. We are indescribable, the folks whose hobby is "not collecting stamps" (in the words of Penn Gilette) and who cannot be easily pigeonholed into one epithet aside from the one thing that unites us (disbelief in God).
At the same time, this diversity hurts us because we lack the overwhelming coordination and structured cohesion that the God Squad has. We're an amorphous blob of people -- more like a "swarm" than a "machine".
I could care less if this is the "official" logo of whomever -- I'll probably still tout the scarlet letter simply because I think the symbolism behind it is more fitting.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 11, 2008 10:54 AM
Rob (#23):
Well, the runner-up design was a guy trying to herd cats. . . .
Posted by: Kseniya | August 11, 2008 10:54 AM
Now I know what a capital at-sign looks like. :-)
It also makes me think, "Cool, the sharp point of reason is about the burst the bubble from within."
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 11, 2008 10:54 AM
A waffle would be appropriate. ;)Posted by: co | August 11, 2008 10:54 AM
Dutch Delighted us with:
@Greg Esres and Co
Symbolism =! Mysticism
Frankly I don't see how you could mistake the two, so maybe I'm missing something.
I never said it was "mysticism", though I rather like that word for it. The statement about the symbol in the original post is rather devoid of content, for the mere reason that one could just as validly say, "The A's crossbar represents the natural universe, the encompassing circle is the inquiring mind, and the two ends of the continuous line making the symbol represent religion and secular humanism, with humanity moving from one end to the other. The journey may be jagged."
How's that for some competing woo?
Plus, it sort of looks like a sperm going into an eye. We all know those things are sacred and designed.
Posted by: Kess | August 11, 2008 10:55 AM
I agree with the couple people that say "why do we need a symbol?"
I don't have a symbol that signifies that I don't believe in the tooth fairy, why do I need one that signifies I don't believe in some omnipotent being?
Posted by: Zach | August 11, 2008 10:55 AM
Tux, the mascot for Linux, was entered into contests when Linux was looking for a logo in the 90s. There were three contests, and he didn't win *any* of them.
Unless there's top-down leadership, symbols arise organically, not by fiat. I doubt that atheism symbol will catch on. Maybe another will. Who knows?
Posted by: 300baud | August 11, 2008 10:55 AM
HA! So now we know that the sorts of people who attend atheism conventions probably overlap considerably with the sorts of people who go to Star Trek conventions.
Posted by: Greg Esres | August 11, 2008 10:56 AM
For the most part, I agree with that, but if you have to tell people what that meaning is, you're pretty much failed, IMO. Personally, I'd prefer a symbol for rationality, rather than atheism.
Posted by: speedwell | August 11, 2008 10:56 AM
I like it. It is:
- Not easily mistaken for some other group's symbol.
- Recognizable in both black and in color.
- Simple.
- Easily and quickly drawn, painted, carved, embossed, or even signed in the air.
- Graceful and refined.
- Has a connection with the "A" of atheism, i.e. the Greek prefix for "not."
It doesn't have to be associated with elves and fairies, the higher mind, or the cosmic woo to be a beautiful, appropriate, and useful symbol.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 11, 2008 10:57 AM
Gah... I can't even proof my own stupid one-line posts. I hate myself. Make that:
"Cool - the sharp point of reason is about to burst the bubble from within."
Posted by: Zach | August 11, 2008 10:57 AM
Also, if Atheists have any symbol, it's the Darwin Fish.
http://www.helsinki.fi/~ssyreeni/atheist/pictures/atheism4
I've never seen that symbol before... I've seen the Darwin Fish a lot.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | August 11, 2008 10:57 AM
Oh my god, the Trekkie anarchists are coming!
Posted by: Martin_z | August 11, 2008 10:58 AM
What's wrong with Dawkins' red "A" used by the "out" campaign, which appears on PZ's blog and several others? Why do we need two "A" symbols?
Posted by: foxfire | August 11, 2008 11:00 AM
I rather like the symbol and don't think a bit of deeper meaning is inappropriate as long as it's not over-woo'd.
I find it odd to create a symbol to express a non-belief (other than the circle with the "no" diagonal surrounding/passing through a representation of the idea that is being negated). In other words, I'd prefer to use a symbol representing science and reason than a symbol representing atheism. But that's just me.
Still, I think the symbol is flowing, graceful and pleasant to view.
Posted by: Greg Esres | August 11, 2008 11:00 AM
I find that very acceptable. :-)
Posted by: Alexandra | August 11, 2008 11:03 AM
I don't think that's exactly "by the same token". While atheists have no common beliefs or positions by which to group them, Christians certainly do. (And the cross rather nicely recapitulates the core of those beliefs.)If someone banged off a nice bumper-version of that Star Trek Atheist logo I might stick it alongside the Darwinfish and FSM on the back of my truck.
Posted by: Mike | August 11, 2008 11:04 AM
I think the "A" symbol is too language specific. A symbol for nonbelief should be pictorial, perhaps a heraldic device which reference to symbols of naturalism.
Posted by: J. P. | August 11, 2008 11:05 AM
Does anyone knows where can I get a hi-res version of thi symbol?
Posted by: Lynnai | August 11, 2008 11:06 AM
Ir would make a terrible neckalace, none of the lines connect so either you get one piece of bent wire that's even open (so you have to solder something on it (and then wonder when it's going to get whacked out of shape by a passing sneeze) and ruin the lines) or that inscribed on a probably a flat piece of metal and I'm sick and bloody tired of flat jewellery.
Works wonderfully in print not so hot in 3D, or rather in 3D it simply continues to be 2D but now with sturcutal instability.
I know, so not the complaints you were looking for. That being said I love the cuves at the bottom of the A and the way it all tapes that's lovely design.
Posted by: BobC | August 11, 2008 11:06 AM
Real atheists are not buried in graves. When they drop dead their bodies are thrown on the wood pile in the back yard, and set on fire. At least that's the way it should be. There's no difference between a dead person and road kill. I never saw anyone bury a dead squirrel. Why bother to bury a dead human ape?
What's wrong with the red "A" I see on many websites? I appreciate seeing that "A". Then I know I'm not wasting my time at a website that has sky fairy woo-woo.
In a perfect world the word atheist would be unnecessary because there would be no theists. Theist is just another word for "batshit crazy".
Posted by: llewelly | August 11, 2008 11:08 AM
Saying 'The circle represents the natural universe ...' is no different from assigning a definition to a newly invented term. It's not 'mysticism'. It's communication. It's an arbitrary symbol whose meaning is initially dictated by those who propose it, but whose effective meaning will be a result of its use. It's as 'mystical' as a dictionary entry.Posted by: Alexandra | August 11, 2008 11:09 AM
He may have repeated it, but I don't believe he's the source of that one.Posted by: PatrickHenry | August 11, 2008 11:09 AM
I never thought about a symbol for the absence of something, but if anybody really wants one there's already that well-known circle with a diagonal line through it. You've seen it for "no smoking" and "no parking" signs. Just the circle-and-diagonal alone would do the job. Rather generic. Simple. Readily understood.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | August 11, 2008 11:10 AM
I like it. It looks like an abbreviated at-symbol, so one can possibly simulate it as @-ism (@heism) in ordinary text.
But why is everyone so adamant to have atheism "technically defined ... by a negative"? That is a philosophical definition, and as all such specifically cloned from theological apologetics (in this area) or generally parsed out to be minimally connected with nature in order to be as rigid (and so dogmatic) as possible.
Parsimony is an important empirical principle and positive to boot, specially when chucking superfluous supernatural superstitions.
Um, hello, α? Signifying science and being first (everyone are born atheist; later some can be taken in by the ease and emotion of the Dark side) while still making the connection. A circumscribed α is easier to produce too. Ah, well.
Somehow I don't think that is an argument as his OUT campaign prefers the scarlet A.
Posted by: Bluegrass Geek | August 11, 2008 11:10 AM
Echoing #47, where can we download nice copies of this? I'd like to start using the symbol myself, but the version displayed here is a touch small.
Posted by: Paul W., Big A-hole | August 11, 2008 11:11 AM
The circle obviously represents a hole, and it's marked with a big A.
I kinda like it.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | August 11, 2008 11:11 AM
I wouldn't want to be associated with a symbol that would give most people the impression that I was a Star Trek nerd.
I really like the "Scarlet Letter" logo of the "OUT" campaign. It's quite beautiful as a design.
Posted by: Jacques | August 11, 2008 11:12 AM
Trekkie anarchy is a fairly apt metaphor for this place.
What do I do with my atheist stickers and buttons with the Dawkins A (think it's Dawkins' thing), also seen on the upper left of this page.
Posted by: Mantecanaut | August 11, 2008 11:12 AM
Sorry, but I'm with Harris on this one. Designing symbols for fan clubs might be fun, but ultimately putting rational, educated people into a group called "atheists" enables that group to be marginalised much easier. As Sam says : "it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture..."
Just another 'belief' system swimming in a pool of relativism. I think it's counter-productive.
Just my two penn'orth.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | August 11, 2008 11:13 AM
I like it, but it instantly looked like a Starfleet symbol to me. Reckon I'll stick with the scarlett 'A'.
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 11, 2008 11:14 AM
Chris@ 22:
"Wait, do us Agnostics have a symbol?"
It's impossible to know for sure if they do.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 11, 2008 11:14 AM
I agree it might be a good idea if atheist have their own symbol but, as many have pointed out, this looks WAY too much like the Starfleet insigna.*
I object because this might give the impression that atheist are all Star Trek nerds that....oh, I see.
*Couldn't figure out how to post this picture in the comments.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 11, 2008 11:17 AM
What's with the saw-tooth lines on the "A"?:) OK, I know they're an artifact, but they really show up here.
Call it "that" if you wish, but I don't see it. A merely privative "a" seems like not much of a symbol. Something for empiricism (or "rationalism", which often subsumes pro-empiricism), or a negation of ghosts and other woo, would make me happier.
But then I don't like the term "atheist", and I don't call myself one (here I often go along with it, since I don't want to go over all of that again and again). It is negative, and it grants too much to the notion of "God" in the first place. It's a lot like being against Santa, pointless or pathetic. Or didactic. There's always something a bit school-marmish about "atheism", seems to me.
And I'm not against either God or Santa. I just don't act as if either one exists.
But you want the symbol? Well, you have it, and I'm just saying why it won't be much of a factor in my life.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | August 11, 2008 11:17 AM
Nice. So where's the Agnostic one? Or do we just use a lighter weight of that?
Posted by: Chuck Lunney | August 11, 2008 11:19 AM
While I agree that atheists and non-believers are a diverse group which don't all agree on everything, the same could be said for the Christians. There are over 38,000 separate sects in their group, but they ALL use a single, easily identifiable symbol -- the cross. Same with many other higher-level groups that have a lot of diversity at the lower ranks.
Having a symbol doesn't negate your individuality, it simply acknowledges a particular group identity of which you are a part.
I think this is a creative, symbolic and elegant emblem of non-belief. It's ambiguous enough to generate questions ("What is THAT?"), simple enough to be used in just about any medium (chalk scribbles on a sidewalk, pins on a lapel, emblazoned on a t-shirt), and definitive enough to identify.
Posted by: Santiago | August 11, 2008 11:19 AM
How about just having any stylized, capital "A" as a symbol for atheism? Then everyone can still have their own, preferred design (important for the whole "herding cats" thing) while still having a unified symbol to represent the group.
In fact, I think a collection of similar symbols describes the group as having similar-thinking members, but with no central authority, which is pretty much what us group of atheists are.
Posted by: James McGrath | August 11, 2008 11:20 AM
I see someone beat me too it, but I too thought that the StarFleet insignia might be adopted for this purpose - Gene Roddenberry would approve, and it saves having to mass produce another emblem that looks just like it!
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 11, 2008 11:21 AM
I don't mind using the same as Atheists. Same for all non religious folks. A stands for without a particular God that you worship. Which is my case. I'm quite happy to wear a symbol for that, by opposition to all those who have a symbol for their religion cross or crescent or whatever.
As long as it's pretty and recognizable, why not ?
Posted by: Andrew Dart | August 11, 2008 11:21 AM
Hey! I've been signing letters with something that looks very much like that for years. Though that said I somehow doubt that people will confuse this symbol as an advert for me.
Posted by: alex | August 11, 2008 11:22 AM
hot damn, that's an ugly symbol.
Posted by: Lynnai | August 11, 2008 11:23 AM
nneerrrgh..... almost.
I'm thinking sterling silver out of habit here, if you made it heavy enough not to warp and still keep the break in the circle it would be too chunky for most people to think of it as a lapel pin (2"+) and then your clothes would obscure part of the pattern if you were using the long arm as the pin back. The other option I suppose is to continue the short arm in the middle of the A backwards at 90 degrees to a butterfly clutch. But it would still catch on your clothes as it turns in that one direction if you keep it 100% as shown.
however if you connected the circle (keeping the taper I like that part) and maybe just touched the top of the A to the circle you'd have soemthing structually far more stable and a castable shape, casting would be so much easier to keep the nice tapers and subtler design elements. And doable in pretty much any size.
I suppose this begs the question of if I make some would you lot actually buy any?
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | August 11, 2008 11:23 AM
Ah, but then you'd have a symbol representing science, not atheism. Remember that not all atheists are interested in science, nor are all atheists necessarily rational or interested in rational discourse.
It's also important to draw the distinction between atheism as a non-religious worldview, and atheism as a political struggle. It's good to have a symbol for atheism as a political struggle, or as a specific organisation promoting the idea that atheists don't necessarily eat babies (but some might, but it's not inherent in the proposition that there are no gods -- or at least that there's not sufficient evidence for the proposition that there are gods to be given any further due consideration).
This looks like a great symbol for the Atheist Alliance organisation; but a terrible one for atheists in general.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 11, 2008 11:24 AM
J. P. @ # 47: Does anyone knows where can I get a hi-res version of thi symbol?
When I dragged the above graphic (about 1" on my screen) into an email msg, it showed up almost 12 times larger. That hi-res enough for ya? (I'm using Firefox, which also tells me the original is at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/A51.PNG - just about any browser should be able to take ya there...)
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | August 11, 2008 11:25 AM
@-ist Bob C, # 49:
Ask the apes - reportedly both elephants and apes may try to arrange or hide dead herd members at times. I'm too lazy to google it, but I seem to remember elephants seen to be making 'ceremonies' around such places even after their mourning period.
Social animals have evolved to mourn and have social customs. Why would we want to change that, or confuse it with religious rites or dogmas?
Posted by: thegomezsymbol | August 11, 2008 11:26 AM
I like the one from outcampaign.org ...
Posted by: wÒÓ† | August 11, 2008 11:27 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: Martin | August 11, 2008 11:27 AM
You lost me when you said that atheism needs a symbol. For what?
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 11, 2008 11:27 AM
We need a symbol for the "Reality-Based Community".
You know, reality, that place where we meet with agnostics, apathetics, unitarians, secular humanists, and liberal believers from all religions?
Posted by: Richard Smith | August 11, 2008 11:28 AM
When I first saw the symbol, I thought it was Chriss Angel's. Turns out his has the left diagonal simply terminate, and the circle is made from the crossbar bisecting the left diagonal and then going clockwise around the "A." I know Criss is anti-woo, but does he want to be "mistaken" for an atheist? And do atheists want to keep explaining that no, the symbol they're wearing/displaying is not about Criss Angel...
Well, at least it would be a good opening to discuss (non-)religion. "Speaking of angels..."
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | August 11, 2008 11:28 AM
sigmund @ #21
Ah, the "Nerds Trying to be Athletes" Trinity!
As to the logo, it looks nice enough, but doesn't it need to be in scarlet?
Posted by: Woot | August 11, 2008 11:30 AM
Seems kinda silly to have a symbol to denote the fact that you don't really believe in fairy stories.
Following Dawkins, does this mean a-teapotists and a-spaghettimonsterists need to get their own symbols too?
Can't we just quit acting like the mediaevalist nutters that we're supposed to be disagreeing with? Or is humanity really that childish?
Posted by: Etha Williams, OM | August 11, 2008 11:30 AM
I like the Star Trek resemblance. But then, I just finished going to a big Star Trek convention...
Posted by: MH | August 11, 2008 11:31 AM
YOU DON'T NEED A SYMBOL; YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING!
YOU'RE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | August 11, 2008 11:32 AM
Sastra,
Did any of the voters consider wÒÓ†'s boobies? I think that would be a great logo on so many different levels.
Posted by: Michelle | August 11, 2008 11:33 AM
...Star Trek sucks!
There! I said it!
Posted by: Blondin | August 11, 2008 11:34 AM
I should think the correct way to dispose of a dead atheist would be to donate it for research or organ harvest.
That's my wish. I left my body to medical research with one proviso: they have to promise not to laugh.
Posted by: Daniel | August 11, 2008 11:34 AM
Starfleet wants their logo back.
Posted by: BobbyEarle | August 11, 2008 11:34 AM
Chris @22...
Undecided, as of yet...
I am reminded of that yellow, wood bead lapel pin that Mensa wanted you to wear. The only time I ever saw it was at get-togethers, and meetings; I never saw it on the street. I guess the idea was that people would ask you about the pin, and you could tell them all about that fabu organization. I used mine on my cork board.
I do like the OUT campaign "A". There is a certain elegance that I like.
Posted by: Randomfactor | August 11, 2008 11:35 AM
The symbol for atheism should be a blank square.
Our symbol is everywhere! Haynes and Fruit-of-the-loom print it on every tee-shirt they sell! It's incorporated into every business letter! It's emblazoned in the sky! (well, as long as it's not cloudy...)
Posted by: Blondin | August 11, 2008 11:37 AM
Erm... I'm not.
Posted by: raven | August 11, 2008 11:39 AM
Not a bad idea. There are probably more miscellaneous agnotics, apathetics, free thinkers, anti-Death Cultists and so one than atheists by several fold.
How about a cow pie in a circle with a diagonal slash through it? No BS.
Posted by: Peter | August 11, 2008 11:39 AM
YOU DON'T NEED A SYMBOL; YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING!
YOU'RE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
Useful for all the stuff we have in common.
Having stuff in common with others hardly makes me less of an individual, next you'll be saying labels are bad. I happen to be fond of nouns.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | August 11, 2008 11:40 AM
I don't see that. It symbolizes evolution, as a reaction to religious creationism and/or its confusion of science with atheism. Wikipedia puts it down as a parody of the ichthys symbol, and I would have to agree.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 11, 2008 11:41 AM
How 'bout a big fancy "I" for "infidel" (meaning approximately "without faith"), and also representing the "|" now used for "on" &/or "1" and of course the non-trivial egos of just about all non-believers?
Rollin', rollin', rollin' - meeowww!
Posted by: ape | August 11, 2008 11:41 AM
Hmm, I agree that this should represent the Atheist Alliance and not be touted as a symbol for atheism. We all know how the religious tend to missunderstand things, this might just exacerbate it. I can just imagine the "Just another belief argument" coming up.
Also, I hope you do all realise that in many places being an atheist is socialy accepted. Not every country is going through such a ridiculous debate.
Here in Québec, Canada, due to our thorough secularisation, it's not even an issue. In fact, in a recent social debate over what we call "Reasonable Accomodations" (such as wearing religious symbols in public functions, etc.) a Catholic Priest's comments were met with widespread reprobation. Most found he had no right commenting on social integration. Obviously the debate continues, but damn am I glad I don't live in the states.
Posted by: Shygetz | August 11, 2008 11:41 AM