you know those ecumenist banners that have a cross, a star of david, something written in arabic from the koran like “insh’allah” or “bismillah” or “maktub” or whatever, a yin-yang, a dharma wheel from tibetan buddhism, an ankh, etc. - one of those things that’s supposed to convey “all religions are one” or “happy non-specific holidays” or whatever - well, here’s what i want to ask you atheist folk:
what symbol do you guys want on the banner? i think the agnostics already have the question mark. maybe the symbol of mankind, a T inside a circle with a dot over it, representing humanism? [i forget where i heard that was the symbol of mankind.]
i’m not joking, i really think this is important. [and if the ankh is not sufficiently goddess worship specific for you, let me know what is. i’m thinking simple iconography, like you’d put on a street sign. “goddess worshipper crossing, 15 MPH”, or “lodging for atheists next left”.
UPDATE:
well, this is probably a good place to start.
FINAL UPDATE:
i guess we have a winner!
okay, i lied: THIS is my final update.
sometimes i’m not sure why i don’t want to call myself an atheist. i certainly do observe the theism around me and find most of it to be an insult to my intelligence. however, i am unable to say i do not believe in god, because i’m not sure what you mean when you say “god”. if by “god” you mean a man with a beard in the sky - nope, don’t believe in that. if you mean the G_D who spoke to Ibrahim in the desert from a tree of flame, how can i say i don’t believe in Him? how can i prove that? the belief that there is absolutely no possibility of the existence of some historical presence or being that spoke to that individual, whoever either of them really was…..i’m unable to state that beyond any shadow of a doubt.
i will probably get enormous flames from people much smarter than me for this, but i am willing to open myself up to that. i think most people’s idea of atheism is complete bullshit because it’s not really scientific. in truth the ONLY reasonable, consistent, and honest position of even the purest scientist is agnosticism. in other words: to say, “it is not possible for me to know whether or not there are any ’supernatural’ beings or states of being with absolute certainty, because it is not possible for me to know ANYTHING with ‘absolute certainty’”. i’m sure that most scientific atheists in fact are prepared to say “there is nothing which exists outside of nature”, but then they’re stuck defining what nature is. good luck with that.
a lot of self-identified atheists have never bothered to study any philosophy. i suppose there are certain programmers, engineers, etc. who think it’s irrelevant. they’re probably not very self-reflective people either and probably think B. F. Skinner is teh dood. or maybe they don’t even know who B. F. Skinner is. when i come across so-called “scientists” who disavow any knowledge of the humanities, i just have to laugh in their faces. so…..anthropology, psychology, history, semantics and language studies, the fine arts, and philosophy, all completely irrelevant? if i can’t write it out in the form of a schematic and build it then it can’t exist? you don’t know much about theoretical mathematics then.
wow, just THINKING about certain popular opinions, let alone TALKING to them, makes me angry at these total strawpeople i weave myself out of my own bullshit and defensiveness. okay, i’ll own that. i will invite the possibility that every intimation i had of unseen realities are all hallucinations, delusions, hell, i’ll even go so far as to say “they’re just chemical reactions inside my brain.” ummm…..dude, you have some reading up on contemporary neuroscience as well. because the “it’s all chemical reactions in the brain” thing? it’s about 20 or 30 years behind the curve.
i should stop arguing with myself, because i always lose. hah, that’s a decent definition of insanity: if you were sane, you’d WIN every argument with yourself. not that i can prove that.
5 responses so far ↓
mark // December 13, 2007 at 10:36 am
although I can’t speak for everyone I don’t think it would be unreasonable to say:
Atheist = someone who does not believe in gods
Agnostic = someone who withholds judgement about the existence of gods
Believers will generally assume:
Atheist = someone who believes there is no god, or denies god
Agnostic = someone who is open to the idea of a god but refuses to pick one
r@d@r // December 13, 2007 at 10:57 am
you may be right about that in general - however, i have come across the stated opinions of quite a few self-identified atheists that more resembles that second definition which you attribute to believers.
then again, we have to be careful of the category “believers” - it’s probably unsafe to assume that there are any human beings that don’t “believe” things even though they are contrary to evidence. it’s a human failing that’s pretty much inescapable, like fear, jealousy or resentment.
mark // December 13, 2007 at 12:53 pm
There’s a difference between (a) belief in lieu of true knowledge/understanding, and (b) belief as some kind of principle in itself, to be adhered to even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
To be honest I find myself fitting in both definitions I mentioned, but I still think it is fair to say: if you don’t believe in gods, you are an atheist.
I think Dawkins’ point on atheist vs agnostic is pretty solid, which is to say that if we are to describe ourselves as agnostic about God we must also describe ourselves agnostic about every other thing which can’t be proven true or false; Zeuss, unicorns, orbitting teapots etc. No sensible person would describe themselves as agnostic with regard to such beliefs, so to reserve the word for a monotheistic God is to automatically grant some sense of authority to the idea.
Duncan // December 19, 2007 at 8:08 am
Hm, well, yeah. I guess no one has pointed out the stylized red A that some atheists are using — see FriendlyAtheist.com or PZMyers’s Pharyngula blog (I think scienceblogs.com/pharyngula will get you there) for examples.
I’m wary of this sort of thing. I don’t particularly want an atheist fashion accessory, especially since the (often declared) motive seems to be “Well, all the other religions have a symbol they can wear, so we should have one too. Except, atheism totally isn’t a religion, okay?” I used to wear a lambda button in the 70s, after it became a gay symbol, but I lost interest early on. When “freedom rings” caught on a decade later, I noticed that a lot of people wanted to wear them but weren’t ready to explain what they meant if someone asked. (”I’ll proudly wear my symbol of gay pride, but I’m not ready to come out yet. Why should I tell the whole world I’m gay? What if my parents found out?” Um, maybe because you’re wearing a gay symbol in public?) I wonder if some atheists will play the same game. Atheism for me isn’t a team membership (our not-god can beat up your god!). Rather than reduce atheism, or anything else, to a soundbyte, I’d prefer that people learn how to discuss what they believe, or don’t, in a reasonably coherent, informed, and rational way. I know, I’m dreaming.
I’m an atheist who’s read quite a lot of philosophy, so I have to wonder if you have read much. Atheism is not a clearly defined doctrine or position, even among professional philosophers. I like Antony Flew’s position of what he called “Stratonician atheism,” which puts the burden of proof on theists to 1) make clear what they mean by god and 2) give good reasons why anyone should believe in its existence, let alone 3) worship it and obey its wishes and whims.
I think that declaring more or less dogmatically that a given god doesn’t exist is more a matter of temperament and rhetorical strategy than of philosophy. But it’s worth remembering that Thomas Huxley, who not only was an agnostic but coined the word, was quite certain that Yahweh and other gods didn’t exist. I think atheists should be agnostic about what we don’t know, and agnostics should not pretend not to believe what they do in fact believe — or at least, be aware of their agnostic heritage. See excerpts from Huxley at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html
I call myself an atheist, not because I claim to know with 100% certainty that there is no god, but because I don’t know what a god is, I see no reason to believe in the gods of existing religions, and I live my life without reference to concepts of gods.
more on the subject of sensitivity « ex-lion tamer // December 20, 2007 at 1:16 pm
[...] 20, 2007 · No Comments as a follow-up to this post and the comments thereof, i would like to put up here an email response i sent to duncan, whose [...]
Leave a Comment