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.
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.
Category Icons / Human
Species Unspecified / Any
Gender Any
Size 500 x 501px
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus
Yeah, the Chris Angel symbol is very similar http://th148.photobucket.com/albums.....ngelsymbol.jpg
Personally, I dislike the idea of a symbol to represent an extremely non-descript classification. Having a tattoo like this groups you in with people who probably don't share any other beliefs with you, aside from the non belief in god. Atheism is just the separation between you and theism, it doesn't define your personality, nor your morality. It doesn't mean you believe in rationality or science either. It's a lone idea, the rejection of theism. You can be Buddhist and atheist. Symbols like this, then, are kind of pointless when dealing with atheism, because it's such a vague belief.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
Personally, I dislike the idea of a symbol to represent an extremely non-descript classification. Having a tattoo like this groups you in with people who probably don't share any other beliefs with you, aside from the non belief in god. Atheism is just the separation between you and theism, it doesn't define your personality, nor your morality. It doesn't mean you believe in rationality or science either. It's a lone idea, the rejection of theism. You can be Buddhist and atheist. Symbols like this, then, are kind of pointless when dealing with atheism, because it's such a vague belief.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
It was designed by a retired schoolteacher named Diane Reed who released it to the general public for its use. The circle is supposed to represent the natural universe, the point 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.
Will its use run out if/when religion is left to dwindle? Yes, because there would be nothing for it to symbol opposition to. But it does have it's use now, and it's an attractive way to say one does not believe in any god or gods. *shrug*
Will its use run out if/when religion is left to dwindle? Yes, because there would be nothing for it to symbol opposition to. But it does have it's use now, and it's an attractive way to say one does not believe in any god or gods. *shrug*
Again - if you don't believe in God, that doesn't mean you trust science either. If it was a symbol representing the thirst for knowledge and the inquisitive mind of human beings, that's great, but it doesn't represent atheism. You can believe in god and still be a scientist. You can be an atheist, yet an avid creationist, you just believe in some other force or entity. I just think the term 'atheist' is far too broad for you to establish and combine into a lone symbol.
I'm failing to see how your argument holds up, because as far as I know, there are two explanations for our existence: The religious argument (God made us), and the scientific argument (Big Bang Theory). I don't see how you could neither believe in a deity or trust science because it means you don't believe in the supernatural or trust the natural world. There is no middle ground here, unless you happen to not care enough about either subject. That's how the symbol works well because it speaks of the very inquisitive nature of the human mind that led people to renounce their faith. They inquired into the claims of religion and they figured out that they didn't like their religion anymore. And without their religion, they're left with the natural universe and its laws to explain the world around them. The symbol fits atheism because science is very much infused into the concept. It's impossible to be an atheist and a creationist because a creationist believes that some deity or supernatural force created the Earth and the universe, where an atheist doesn't believe in anything supernatural, deities included. It's possible to believe in God and still a scientist, but it's a practice that's dwindling because the scientists are starting to realize that science doesn't need a deity to make it work.
And we're just using the symbol; we didn't make it. You want to discuss the social and lingual implications of it, go talk to the artist.
And we're just using the symbol; we didn't make it. You want to discuss the social and lingual implications of it, go talk to the artist.
All I can see when I look at this is a Star Trek communicator badge.
The symbol bears a strong resemblance to a common simplified form of a symbol for anarchism. I'm concerned that people who display this symbol will be silently shunned due to being confused for anarchists.
Comments