Now wikipedia has a fucking atheist symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism).

"Gee, Hare, you're just overanalyzing everything. Dawkinism, that sure is a funny term you made up."

Now wikipedia has a fucking atheist symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism).

"Gee, Hare, you're just overanalyzing everything. Dawkinism, that sure is a funny term you made up."

That is pretty funny actually.

When we have a Church of Atheism I think a large part of my life will just pack up and go somewhere to laugh for a while.

Symbols are used for a great number of non-theistic functions. Why would this be disconcerting?

Symbols are used for a great number of non-theistic functions. Why would this be disconcerting?

Keep fooling yourself.

Keep fooling yourself.

Are you suggesting that symbols are used only for theism? Am I fooling my self by thinking otherwise?

Are you suggesting that symbols are used only for theism? Am I fooling my self by thinking otherwise?

I believe atheists are not only atheists because they reject god, but they also reject the organizations that preach the idea of god.

The last thing atheists want is to be an organized group. Then they would just be another faction.

Symbols are used for a great number of non-theistic functions. Why would this be disconcerting?

It wouldn't be but this is the symbol that goes on military tomb stones the same way a cross or star of Dvaid is used.

Now wikipedia has a fucking atheist symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism).

"Gee, Hare, you're just overanalyzing everything. Dawkinism, that sure is a funny term you made up."

Hate to say it, but:

Gee, Hare, you're just overanalyzing everything. In fact, I'll upgrade that overanalyzing to include the vigilance you go through to take more pot shots at Richard Dawkins, all because you believe he is trying to turn atheism into his own cult, which he's not.

Using the term Dawkinism to try to maintain that this catch-phrase alone is proof positive that people who admire his work have put him on some sort of pedestal, and that his stance on atheism makes him the deranged leader of a dangerous cult-like mentality ... is ridiculous.

Supporting his stance on certain issues - issues that already existed before he became such a popular author - does not mean that they cling to his every word as the definitive, unquestionable gospel. That he happens to effectively communicate to others that theism is an outdated concept that should be treated like any other old myth ... let's call ALL those who hold this same opinion Dawkinists, as if he alone granted everyone this epiphany. :rolleyes:

Onto the symbol...

It's just that ... a symbol. Symbols are used in medicine, sports, advertising and politics. Symbols are simply a visual representation used to reference something. The Republican party has an elephant as their symbol. Does that mean that Republicans make some sort of theistic connection to whatever Republican is currently holding that platform? No. It simply means that they support the republican stance.

You are heavily inclined towards the philosophical stance, but I bet you don't find it at all disconcerting that there are several symbols that represent philosophy out there. I bet you don't find it absurd that people who appreciate philosophy sometimes sport these symbols on their webpages, their cars, their notebooks or the corkboards in their offices. And I know damn well you wouldn't believe for a second that people who display any one symbol for philosophy are somehow exhibiting a cult-like demeanor just for using it.

More likely, you are just overanalyzing the symbol for atheism as being absurd simply because you have a strong prejudice against the idea of atheists depicted as a group if they happen to hold theism in contempt. For some strange reason, you believe atheists shouldn't consider themselves as a "group", which really only means that in numbers, they are simply an assembly of people who are connected by their similar ideas. For some strange reason, a "group" of atheists who all share the same stance is just ... wrong. Especially if this group of atheists all happen to share the same notion that theism is asinine.

The last thing atheists want is to be an organized group.

No, the last thing atheists want is to be compared to a religion. Being organized is not exclusive to religion, there are organized assemblies of people who are connected by the same values in other arenas, why should it be unusual or deplorable for atheists to be considered "organized" if they occasionally assemble together so that they can discuss things that are relevant to their stance, such as national public policies and judicial rulings that stand to undermine their preferred way of life?

As others have pointed out, symbols are used for many things, not just theism.

I think a little symbol for "I'm not a religious fuckstick" is handy. I mean, if we REALLY wanted to "get too religious" we could just steal a symbol from somebody else. The Autobot logo, anyone?

removed img

Atheists: More Than Meets The Eye! The theists already think we're all trying to destroy them, I bet that'll throw them for a loop.

You're just over analyzing everything.

Dawkins had nothing to do with that symbol. As far as I know, it was created by an atheist organization, and it isn't that popular amongst atheist outside of that organization.

I'm not a big fan of having an atheist symbol but to say/imply this is part of some "Dawkinist" conspiracy is silly.

I don't see it as intentional.

So why is BrokeProphet fooling himself then?

You're just over analyzing everything.

it was created by some atheist organization, and it isn't that popular amongst atheist outside of that organization.

This.

It's a dumb symbol and a dumb idea. It implies that all atheists are in love with science - physics mostly, apparently; it also implies that atheists share something beside a lack of belief in God(s). Still, there is that that they share, and I don't think it's harmful to have a symbol for nonreligion when religion is so prominent.