Proposal for an Atheist symbol

[Ad Initium]

As far as I know there have not been any real symbols for atheism. There have been lots of heathen symbols, for sure. But since a heathen is not the same as an Atheist, taking a symbol from them would be odd.
I recalled a Thundef00t video about it, but I could not so quickly find it as reference or background info.

Acc to wiki:

Heathen is from Old English hà¦à°en "not Christian or Jewish" (c.f. Old Norse heià°inn). Historically, the term was probably influenced by Gothic haià¾i "dwelling on the heath", appearing as haià¾no in Ulfilas' bible as "gentile woman" (translating the "Hellene" in Mark 7:26). This translation was probably influenced by Latin paganus, "country dweller", or it was chosen because of its similarity to the Greek ἐθνικός ethnikos, "gentile". It has even been suggested that Gothic haià¾i is not related to "heath" at all, but rather a loan from Armenian hethanos, itself loaned from Greek ἔθνος ethnos.

As you may have guessed ... I have a proposal. Both a symbol and a short accompying (<think i wrote that wrong?) it for an Atheist Symbol

Why would we need a symbol?
------------------------------------------
- Because groups need identifying markers.
- Imho, saying you are an Atheist just is not enough. You need symbols and you can use symbols as a defence mechanism. I'll give you an example for it:
- - In language, eventhough I am a Atheist, I keep writing God with a capital -G- .... Now ... Why? ... That is how it was thaught to me, as it denote respect.
- - As such, I made myself a promis that when I write the word Atheist, I will write it with a capital -A-! But still I catch myself having to go back and make the -a- an -A-.
- - That is an example of symbolism. Though both the -g/G- and the -a/A- are just letters, ... using them as capitals gives them symbolism and meaning! (imho)

The Symbol:
-----------------
- pi ... as such Π


The Short:
--------------
- PAC or P.A.C. if you like. which stands for Praetorian Atheist Community.


How did I come to this?
--------------------------------
- I am a movie fan, ... and if you recall the movie "The Net" with Sandra Bullock, this symbol was used too and was used as the -P- from the pi meant Preatorians too.
- PAC ... sounds like pack. My youtube name is -JungleHyena-. ... Hyena's are known to hunt in packs, but are considered cursed animals in Africa (origin of mankind) and not many people like them. But from none egoism,... I specially mean the trades accompying a pack. It means a group of people/animals sticking together and staying alive.
- Pi is a scientific symbol.


Pre's:
--------
- Pi is a scientific symbol and of that, a mysterious one too. It is used in many scientific formulas. Like those concerning circles:
- - A circle is round ... as the earth was found not to be flat ... that reference can not be overlooked. As such it means the quest for progress.
- - Pi is infinite ... there is no end to how many decimals it has. Inifite also means the ever on going quest for knowledge, which scientifically never stops.

- Praetorians were the guards of the Roman Emperors. A western phenomenon, ofcourse, ... that is true.
- - The Praetorians already existed before the birth of Christianity.
- - They were soldiers, ofcourse ... but soldiers stick together and fight for a common goal.


I have not really thought on against yet ... hench I put it here in the Scepticism section. Sure someone can find some against.


How would we use the symbol,
--------------------------------------------
... if anyone else would want to go with me on this and start using it as a symbol for atheism?
- Whatever and whenever you like.
- I personally used it sofar in 1 movie I made on youtube. Which is atm still being compiled together and not online. In that case I used it, the same way as they used it in the movie "The Net" ... as just simply the symbol on the lower right of the screen, and in this case thus the video I am making (I'll add it below once I have it on YouTube).


What do you think sceptically? Would it make any sence to use that symbol? Or would there be a better candidate?

With Respect,

The Jungle Hyena

 

[Memeticemetic]

While I understand that people often feel the need to organize under a single banner, it's simply absurd to do so with something like atheism. It's not a proper -ism. Organizing to celebrate fellowship in a lack of something is pointless and counter productive. We don't share common creeds, backgrounds, nationalities, habits... really we don't have a damn thing in common other than the answer to the classic question that doesn't bear repeating. Far better, I think, to join or create groups dedicated to skeptical inquiry, science, rationalism, secular humanism and the like. Let atheism fade to the insignificant answer to an insignificant question which is the outcome I'd like to see become the norm. Not that I expect it to happen in my lifetime, but hey, a boy can dream.

 

[Ad Initium]

While I understand that people often feel the need to organize under a single banner, it's simply absurd to do so with something like atheism. It's not a proper -ism. Organizing to celebrate fellowship in a lack of something is pointless and counter productive. We don't share common creeds, backgrounds, nationalities, habits... really we don't have a damn thing in common other than the answer to the classic question that doesn't bear repeating. Far better, I think, to join or create groups dedicated to skeptical inquiry, science, rationalism, secular humanism and the like. Let atheism fade to the insignificant answer to an insignificant question which is the outcome I'd like to see become the norm. Not that I expect it to happen in my lifetime, but hey, a boy can dream.

To a degree I agree. I am at 50/50 myself on it. The balance for me personally will differ on the agreement.

The point for it however is not:
- WE agree 'a' God does not exist, while not having anything else in common.

The point is that all the other symbolisms around say:
- THEY do not believe, and thus make us into a single group, wether we like it or not.

The MERE fact, we do not believe, would be our only common factor (which you basically say), should actually be a matter of pride. BECAUSE it actually shows towards those that do believe in something, ... it is possible for humans of all different grounds, nationalities, habbits, cultures and upbringing, to be united under a banner, whithout a God.

( Note: My personal believe is for world peace to ever become true, ... we need a unified governement. That is which spawns my thoughts like this. )

Most religions tend to show (lack of better) xenofobia towards other religions. As Atheists we should not feel bad towards religions, ... if we are not debunking.

What if not beyond anything else ... a person NOT believing in 'a' God or God's .... reckognizes beyond anything else ... he is human and only has this one change on our mother planet Earth, to make the best of it?

I do so fully reck that an Atheist, does not have to be a humanist, so do not get me wrong (I do not think I am one either). That was calculated into the equasion (<did I get that word right?). Humans go about their lives in many different ways, those atleast that have a choice in the matter. I have only to take myself for it. I am an Atheist, I sincerely believe in science, not so that I revere it, but as much as that I do think we have no other choice but to excell at science and to progress at it at warp 9.9999999.

Symbolism, whatever way you want to look at it ... IS important. It is a human thing to do and interact with. That is why I proposed it.

 

[Ad Initium]

Video in which I used it is rdy ... enjoy:

 

[Gnug215]

Making a symbol for atheism (what about that big red "A" from Richard Dawkins?) would only give more fodder to the theist "argument" that atheism is a religion/worldview - which it isn't.
While something like that shouldn't normally deter you, I think it's just shooting yourself in the foot.

I'd even advocate moving away from using the word "atheist" to describe oneself. As Memetic says, he hopes "atheist" will just be an insignificant answer to an insignificant question.

Also:

Symbolism, whatever way you want to look at it ... IS important. It is a human thing to do and interact with. That is why I proposed it.

As skeptics, or whatever, I think symbolism is exactly the kind of thing we should be "above". It seems like something that just caters to some basic human needs, such as those the religious seem to indulge in when they mindlessly gather in flock around symbols, using rites and words to solidify their illusory unity. Or something.
There is a reason the religious are using symbolism so much, and I think that reason is the very reason you shouldn't use it.

 

[lrkun]

I disagree with your suggestion that we need a symbol for purposes of identification and others because it's not necessary and there is no need to paint a bulleye on our back. :9

 

[Prolescum]

it's simply absurd to do so with something like atheism.

Completely agree with you. I'm a musician, a touch-typist, an incorrigible twat, a man, a mobile phone user, a (secret) lemonade drinker, I prefer vegemite to marmite (it's the consistency)... the list goes on, but I don't require a badge to notify others of any of these things, nor are any of them my sole identifier. Not believing in Judas or whatever it is these days is such a small part of my being as to be irrelevant in most circumstances. There shouldn't be an official atheism (or atheist token) any more than there should be an official air-breathing contest at the Olympics.

 

[kenandkids]

Completely agree with you. I'm a musician, a touch-typist, an incorrigible twat, a man, a mobile phone user, a (secret) lemonade drinker, I prefer vegemite to marmite (it's the consistency)... the list goes on, but I don't require a badge to notify others of any of these things, nor are any of them my sole identifier. Not believing in Judas or whatever it is these days is such a small part of my being as to be irrelevant in most circumstances. There shouldn't be an official atheism (or atheist token) any more than there should be an official air-breathing contest at the Olympics.

I've yet to see laws passed to restrict the rights of those that prefer vegemite, drink lemonade, breathe, etc.. It's not irrelevant here in America because there are laws in place against holding office, movements that diminish us, and presidents that aren't sure if we are citizens. I'm seriously tired of this stupid statement that "it isn't important."

When it isn't important I'll celebrate. Until then we are a group of people under siege, regardless of how ridiculous the reason.

I think this young man has it right:

And this young lady:

 

[kenandkids]

I disagree with your suggestion that we need a symbol for purposes of identification and others because it's not necessary and there is no need to paint a bulleye on our back. :9

The fact that you you consider it a "bullseye" is what should make you care.

 

[Prolescum]

Completely agree with you. I'm a musician, a touch-typist, an incorrigible twat, a man, a mobile phone user, a (secret) lemonade drinker, I prefer vegemite to marmite (it's the consistency)... the list goes on, but I don't require a badge to notify others of any of these things, nor are any of them my sole identifier. Not believing in Judas or whatever it is these days is such a small part of my being as to be irrelevant in most circumstances. There shouldn't be an official atheism (or atheist token) any more than there should be an official air-breathing contest at the Olympics.

I've yet to see laws passed to restrict the rights of those that prefer vegemite, drink lemonade, breathe, etc.. It's not irrelevant here in America because there are laws in place against holding office, movements that diminish us, and presidents that aren't sure if we are citizens. I'm seriously tired of this stupid statement that "it isn't important."

Sir, I disagree. Fair enough you're living in the land of the buy one get one free, however, do you think a symbol will have more of an effect than directly lobbying your representatives (or *shiver* fielding a candidate yourself)?

Get off your arse if there's a problem, you live in a democracy. I have no sympathy for backseat drivers. I speak to my MP a few times a year about issues that matter to me. That's what he's there for (I didn't vote for him either). Going to a polling booth once every four years clearly isn't satisfying your needs, perhaps some active involvement might be more productive...

When it isn't important I'll celebrate.

It isn't. Defining yourself by something you're not (religious) is as bad as, if not worse than, having others define you by it, which was my original point.

Until then we are a group of people under siege, regardless of how ridiculous the reason.

Lol, talk about over-dramatising a situation. Even if so, why does being under siege require a token to identify you?

Is it because you can then put it in your signature (or avatar or whatever) wherever you post on the internet and feel like you've contributed to the cause? With all due respect, that's a shit reason. In fact, it's not even a reason; it's an excuse to do sweet fuck all.

 

[lrkun]

I disagree with your suggestion that we need a symbol for purposes of identification and others because it's not necessary and there is no need to paint a bulleye on our back. :9

The fact that you you consider it a "bullseye" is what should make you care.

Care about what? In what way? What do you mean?

 

[FaithlessThinker]

They usually say "Herding atheists is like herding cats." If you search for "atheist symbol" in Google Images, you get a variety of symbols. The most popular of them is probably the atomic symbol, followed by the stylized capital A with a circle around it, similar to how @ would be written.

Personally I no longer use capital letters (unless absolutely necessary) to start words like god, muslims, christians, hindus, jains, buddhists, wiccans, pagans, islam, christianity, hinduism, jainism, buddhism, wicca, paganism. I even taught my spellchecker that not using capital letters for these words is okay, so that I don't get those wriggly red underlines.

In language, eventhough I am a Atheist, I keep writing God with a capital -G- .... Now ... Why? ... That is how it was thaught to me, as it denote respect.

Do you think god deserves any kind of respect? I don't think so, be it the christian god, muslim allah, hindu krishna (the god of concubines, infatuation and sexual attraction which they pass off as 'love') or any god.

I do like the idea of having a symbol, and my choice would be the capital A written similar to @. You see, that's the problem. The whole idea of atheism requires you to be open to ideas that oppose yours. I like my choice for a symbol, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Religion on the other hand has control. Not only does religious leaders dictate what you should believe and do, they can also dictate what symbol you should use. Suppose tomorrow the vatican council along with the pope decides that their brand of christianity should now be represented by a symbol like this, and a follower of the vatican objects, his objection would fall in deaf ears. This is what the council decided to use, and this is what he should use. If he doesn't like it, he can go become a protestant, a methodist, or whatever, but he can't stay a vatican christian.

It's cool to have a symbol to represent atheism, but if you choose one and try to make it global it's going to be a tough time, buddy. Besides, atheists are not a group in the sense that they gather in specific places of gathering that are dedicated to atheism. They are mainly a group of a non-groupers (people who don't wish to belong to a group or a religion). If you give atheism a definite universal symbol, you make it a group and hence like a religion.

Having a unified government also has the same problem as a vatican council. While it can potentially bring world peace, it also opens the door to world dictatorship. It makes the threat of an entirely islamic world a real possibility (btw, muslims say islam means peace, so then they would argue "islamic world = world peace"). So it's actually better to have several different countries that are exactly on the same level as every other country in terms of authority running the world together, than have a world government watching over all the countries. The president of a world government would essentially become a mortal god, where he could run the entire world to his qualms and have selfish fun with the lives of billions of innocents (much like how the biblical god does).

 

[lrkun]

I agree with faithlessthinker's idea. A personal symbol is better than a global symbol, unless the whole atheist community aggrees to have one. On that note, I'd choose an equilateral triangle.

 

[Prolescum]

Personally I no longer use capital letters (unless absolutely necessary) to start words like god, muslims, christians, hindus, jains, buddhists, wiccans, pagans, islam, christianity, hinduism, jainism, buddhism, wicca, paganism. I even taught my spellchecker that not using capital letters for these words is okay, so that I don't get those wriggly red underlines.

Like Ad Initium, you've forgotten (or perhaps don't know, I know Ad Initium's first language isn't English) that God, Christian, Islam et al are proper nouns, atheist is not. It's about grammar, not symbolism. I'll be honest with you, it comes across as petty and falls far below the line of rationality.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Like Ad Initium, you've forgotten (or perhaps don't know, I know Ad Initium's first language isn't English) that God, Christian, Islam et al are proper nouns, atheist is not. It's about grammar, not symbolism. I'll be honest with you, it comes across as petty and falls far below the line of rationality.

I had a feeling a grammatician would pop by. I know that it's not very rational to do what I do when you take English grammar into account, and I didn't suggest otherwise. That's why I started my comment as "Personally I no longer" and not "It's irrational to."

To my defense however, regarding the use of god instead of God, half my reason is because god is generally not a proper noun (See OED). It's only a proper noun when it refers to the christian god or the god in a monotheistic religion. The other half is what you would call "petty" - my rebellion against denoting respect to a non-existent being that would have been evil and demented according to the very book he is said to have written, if he existed.

 

[Prolescum]

Like Ad Initium, you've forgotten (or perhaps don't know, I know Ad Initium's first language isn't English) that God, Christian, Islam et al are proper nouns, atheist is not. It's about grammar, not symbolism. I'll be honest with you, it comes across as petty and falls far below the line of rationality.

I had a feeling a grammatician would pop by. I know that it's not very rational to do what I do when you take English grammar into account, and I didn't suggest otherwise. That's why I started my comment as "Personally I no longer" and not "It's irrational to."

I can't imagine not taking grammar into account when I write, even when it's something as insignificant as a double negative.

To my defense however, regarding the use of god instead of God, half my reason is because god is generally not a proper noun (See OED). It's only a proper noun when it refers to the christian god or the god in a monotheistic religion.

True in general, however, God (the singular) is mainly used within the context you've just provided, especially on these boards.

Let's look at your own argument:

Do you think god deserves any kind of respect? I don't think so, be it the christian god, muslim allah, hindu krishna (the god of concubines, infatuation and sexual attraction which they pass off as 'love') or any god.

You're certainly referring to the Christian God in that first sentence. Only one of those gods should be lower case for grammatical reasons, and it isn't any with actual names (the Christian God, Allah, Krishna, Odin, Anu, Quetzlcoatl, Dave...).

The other half is what you would call "petty" - my rebellion against denoting respect to a non-existent being that would have been evil and demented according to the very book he is said to have written, if he existed.

It's not about respect, it's about grammar, hence thinking it's petty. It's shallow point scoring and is beneath you.

Edit: Oh yeah, speaking of point scoring... it's grammarian

 

[FaithlessThinker]

[Dissection of my replies by Prolescum]

Let us agree to disagree, shall we? I'm not as strict about grammar as you are.

As for me going against myself, although I mentioned that it's only a proper noun when it refers to the christian god (and similar), I forgot to mention that it is also taught that proper nouns must start with capital letters as a sign of respect. It is due to this reason that I choose not to start god with a capital g.

These are my opinions. If you feel enraged by them, I'm sincerely sorry. If it'd be any comfort to you, I do start these words in capitals when being grammatically correct is of importance (for example on a school report, or a legal document).

 

[Prolescum]

Let us agree to disagree, shall we? I'm not as strict about grammar as you are.

Would you write your friend's names in lower case? How about cities? Months?

As for me going against myself, although I mentioned that it's only a proper noun when it refers to the christian god (and similar), I forgot to mention that it is also taught that proper nouns must start with capital letters as a sign of respect.

Yes, you must respect both Sheffield and Wednesday...

It is due to this reason that I choose not to start god with a capital g.

Yay, you get an angry-yet-impotent-fist-shake point. Congrats.

These are my opinions. If you feel enraged by them, I'm sincerely sorry. If it'd be any comfort to you, I do start these words in capitals when being grammatically correct is of importance (for example on a school report, or a legal document).

Lol, it must be annoying assuming everything is adversarial.

Are you saying it's not important in a sentence to distinguish between a god and God when you're referring specifically to one or the other? The reason we have grammar in the first place is to make clear what we mean to say... Nothing like some unnecessary obfuscation, eh.

 

[kenandkids]

Let us agree to disagree, shall we? I'm not as strict about grammar as you are.

NO! You are wrong and he is going to attack until you agree wholeheartedly!!

 

[FaithlessThinker]

[More dissection]

Friend, please let it go already. Why do you have to be so adamant about forcing grammatical rules down the throat of someone else. If I chose to follow rules when writing Sheffield and Wednesday, and break them when writing god, does that affect you? Really? You're picking a fight for a very mundane reason...

The "capital letters as sign of respect" thing was taught to me to be applicable when the proper nouns refer to something or someone that can be respected. This is what I was taught. I never said this is right. Maybe my English teachers were wrong.

NO! You are wrong and he is going to attack until you agree wholeheartedly!!

Homeopaths are wrong and we should attack them until they agree wholeheartedly.
Religious people are wrong and we should attack them until they agree wholeheartedly.
UFO proponents are wrong and we should attack them until they agree wholeheartedly.

So why aren't we?

C'mon, give me a break.