A symbol for atheists

[crocodile deathroll]

Does any one know of any symbols like the cross, the crescent, the yin yang that is universally used by atheists.

Here is one very simple suggestion. Of course when you are designing logos of symbols, it does pay to stick to the KISS principle or "keep it simple stupid" because you can do so much more with them and even a child can draw them.

This one symbolizes who one should be open the question dogma. The crucifix is a symbol of traditional dogma and I superimposed a question mark over it.

CDR

 

[elliotfc]

Does any one know of any symbols like the cross, the crescent, the yin yang that is universally used by atheists.

Here is one very simple suggestion. Of course when you are designing logos of symbols, it does pay to stick to the KISS principle or "keep it simple stupid" because you can do so much more with them and even a child can draw them.

This one symbolizes who one should be open the question dogma. The crucifix is a symbol of traditional dogma and I superimposed a question mark over it.

CDR

Why would you need a symbol in the first place?

The symbol you provided is akin to hijacking someone else's symbol to be cutesy, like the Darwin fish. But I guess this is to be expected from humanists. Humanistic morality hasn't come up with any new ideas as far as I can tell, but picks and chooses and tweaks past religious and philosophical morality.

The creative thing would be to pick a symbol that isn't associated with religious symbols, but religious symbols have a powerful appeal, don't they?

-Elliot

 

[MRC_Hans]

A symbol for atheism is self-contradictory. Atheism is not a religion or a movement, there is no unifying theme. You might as well make a club for not collecting stamps.

elliotfc:

Humanistic morality hasn't come up with any new ideas as far as I can tell, but picks and chooses and tweaks past religious and philosophical morality.

The new idea is exactly that you are not confined by dogmas about the "one divine thruth". Instead you are burdened with the responsibility of thinking for yourself and living up to a more universal ethical standard. That you can recognize herein various principles of several religions is only evidence that morals and ethics are universal human values and not the property of any praticular religion.

Hans

 

[Peter Jenkins]

The symbol you provided is akin to hijacking someone else's symbol to be cutesy, like the Darwin fish. But I guess this is to be expected from humanists. Humanistic morality hasn't come up with any new ideas as far as I can tell, but picks and chooses and tweaks past religious and philosophical morality

Is this something peculiar to Humanists?
Wasn't the 'Jesus fish' originally a fertility symbol?
Wasn't December 25th originally a pagan festival?
Isn't this a case of 'Dear Kettle. Sincerely, Pot?
Peter

 

[elliotfc]

The new idea is exactly that you are not confined by dogmas about the "one divine thruth". Instead you are burdened with the responsibility of thinking for yourself and living up to a more universal ethical standard. That you can recognize herein various principles of several religions is only evidence that morals and ethics are universal human values and not the property of any praticular religion.

Hans

More universal ethical standard? What is a standard? Or, what is the standard? Is there one standad for every person? I am not talking about "property of any particular religion". I agree that we should look for universal values, and in my parlance another way of saying that would be "one divine truth". If you don't like that way of speaking, I'm happy to settle for universal values. I also see no inherent reason why *one particular religion* should have a monopoly on universal truth. Accept for the fact that religions differ because they differ on their ideas about universal truth, even if it slightly.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Is this something peculiar to Humanists?
Wasn't the 'Jesus fish' originally a fertility symbol?
Wasn't December 25th originally a pagan festival?
Isn't this a case of 'Dear Kettle. Sincerely, Pot?
Peter

No, because I believe in spirituality.

Now, if you believe in supernatural reality, I apologize. I am going to assume that you do not believe in supernatural reality.

I believe that it worked the other way around as well. If a symbol is inspired by the super/preternatural, then it's in that particular lexicon. The fertility symbol (I think it besides the point to get into the specific of the fish at the moment, and if/ifnot it was a fertility symbol, I'll give you that for now because it's not a big deal) was tied to a belief that rituals could invoke super/preternatural intervention, or, such spirits could be controlled and made to do a particular thing. When Christianity assumed more ancient practices/rites, they were maintaining the belief that a supernatural reality existed.

CS Lewis, among others, had the idea that the ideas could have been hijacked the other way around. Take the crucifixion. If you believe in demonic spirits (maybe you do, maybe you don't, just work within the belief for a moment), it is possible to believe that they would take the glorious moment of Christianity (crucifixion/resurrection), and debase it earlier in history by associating it with something inferior. Or, they could be what Lewis called "happy dreams", where people in the past had a vague idea about what was coming up, and articulated it as best they could.

Regarding December 25th, it was more of a convenient date to pick. Before Christians celebrated Christmas, they celebrated the feast of the Anunciation (the conception of Jesus, when Gabriel appeared to Mary). Being the kind of people who liked patterns, they assumed this would have happened on the same day as the crucifixion (meaning Jesus' life would have spanned an exact number of years). The date for the crucifixion was held to be late March/early April, and that date varied in the opinions of early Church leaders. Anyhow, 9 months after late March, early April, gives you late December, early January. Before Christmas was celebrated, the feast of the Ephiphany was celebrated. That became associated with the New Year. And of course Christmas came several days before the Epiphany. In December 25th they found a convenient day for Christmas (because it was already a festival). But like the Romans, they believed in the supernatural.

What I'm saying here is that people when people who don't believe in the supernatural hijack the symbols of people who do believe in the supernatural, it smacks me as ulterior to their essential beliefs. But I suppose the point might not to be faithful to their beliefs. I've always believed that the Darwin fish is meant more to mock the beliefs of others, or to give certain people the symbolic mechanism to feel intellectual satisfaction. We all need our own coping mechanisms I guess.

-Elliot

 

[c4ts]

That symbol looks like the roads at the center of an English town.

 

[elliotfc]

I actually like this symbol. It gives you something to think about. Even a Christian could like it. The cross, after all, is a mystery...

-Elliot

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have another suggestion:

 

[Hal 2001]

Re: Re: A symbol for atheists

Humanistic morality hasn't come up with any new ideas as far as I can tell, but picks and chooses and tweaks past religious and philosophical morality.


-Elliot

Let me partly disagree.

First let's be clear ethics or morality are basic sets of principle governing peoples action.

Let's be simplistic and say it's a set of rules of does and don't.

It's in fact a combination of rules and principles governing our actions. And of course a humanistic view on morality would use preexisting ideas (but combines them differently), So has christianity (I'm pretty sure it's hard to find a true "first pick".

The new side of humanitarian morality is largely in the way we choose those rules. A Christian will largely base them on authority (Gods).

I personly do not find that satisfying. I have I admit a very "utilitarian" view on morality, and I am very permissive. If I can see no reason/utility behind a rule I reject it. And my morality differs largely from Classic Christian morality. And yet I would under almost no condition kill or steal(and loads of other stuff), that doesn't mean I just "stole" that from christianity (or anyother religion as they almost all tell not to steal of kill), I don't do it because I think a society based on such rules would have less total utility than a society not based on those rules (Theres is a part of Kant's golden rule here).

Sorry this was written very fast, it is very simplistic and not a real good explanations of my views...but I want to go home from work now.

Mss Hal

 

[crocodile deathroll]

I have another suggestion:

Yes I aggree atheism does not need symbols any more than pragmatism needs symbols.

But just for fun I will throw in this one.
Still sticking to the question mark theme.


A crucifix being sucked into a black hole (or stirring paint).

 

[Mercutio]

Ok, so I still can't attach an image... but this site has pins for sale (about halfway down) with "the atheist symbol" on them. Looks like somebody beat you to it. Oh, this site is by the darwin-fish people.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Atheism is not a religion or a movement, there is no unifying theme. You might as well make a club for not collecting stamps.

There are atheist clubs, organizations, publications, etc. Apparently there is some unifying theme even if you don't chose to acknowledge that.

 

[swstephe]

Blue Öyster Cult?

First thing I thought when I saw it ... I still think their symbol is cooler:

 

[Andonyx]

There are atheist clubs, organizations, publications, etc. Apparently there is some unifying theme even if you don't chose to acknowledge that.

Well, the unifying theme is usually, hey, we're also citizens!

It's the same as any group that has been marginalized. The unifying drive has far less to do with atheism and more to do with the fact that we get screwed out of legislation, ceremonies, political policy and other things all the time.

I think the day that Atheism is not admonished as evil and the government actually sticks to the separation clause you'll see a lot of these clubs dissolve.

 

[Checkmite]

Re: Blue Öyster Cult?

First thing I thought when I saw it ... I still think their symbol is cooler:

That symbol, by the way, is also known as the "Cross of Confusion" and has been hijacked as a symbol used by 14-year-olds who pretend to worship Satan.

 

[Sindai]

Re: Re: Blue Öyster Cult?

That symbol, by the way, is also known as the "Cross of Confusion" and has been hijacked as a symbol used by 14-year-olds who pretend to worship Satan.

My first thought was "Look, an upside-down anhk!" I guess for worshipping some evil Egyptian gods or something. I'm sure all the hip young Egyptians wore it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It's the same as any group that has been marginalized. The unifying drive has far less to do with atheism and more to do with the fact that we get screwed out of legislation, ceremonies, political policy and other things all the time.

I think the day that Atheism is not admonished as evil and the government actually sticks to the separation clause you'll see a lot of these clubs dissolve.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they form clubs, organizations, groups, create publications, etc., because they like atheism. I can see both ways, and I'm sure it is some of both.

 

[Quinn]

A crucifix being sucked into a black hole (or stirring paint).

I don't think that one meets your qualification of being easy for kids to draw. Unless five-year-olds are learning Photoshop these days.

Quinn

 

[Yahweh]

Call me crazy but I think this pretty well constitutes as a symbol for atheists...