Atheist Symbol Suggestions

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Witness the strife caused between longtime friends Martin, Bart, and Milhouse over the first issue of Atomic Man.

I believe that the "proper" name is Radioactive man. Worst Simpon's misquote ever!

(end comic book guy speak)

[Darth Wong]

Actually, I don't quite understand this desire to associate yourself with another person via symbols. To me it is cheesy grandstanding. Like 'Look, hey I'm an athiest!'. The kind of garbage that cross wearing imbeciles succumb to. I'd never broadcast my lack of faith/belief in garbage. I deal with people on a 1 on 1 basis. Even if I despise christian doctine, I don't feel myself to be superior, nor do I hang on my lack of faith/belief in garbage. To me this symbol seems to emphasise that choice.

This is my opinion exactly.

Do you have anything to contribute other than facile opinions? What is your rebuttal to RedImperator's point on this matter?

[Rock Lee]

He did not exactly "rebut" the ideas that h0rus presented. At best, he addressed them obliquely. I believe his point to be an irrelevant semantical difference and do not feel as though it harms h0rus' opinion. And, frankly, there is no reason to rehash other people's statements. Although I do have something to add to his idea: I do not necessarily want myself associated with other atheists, nor do I want them associating themselves with me. Putting a symbol on something can only imply a few things: a structure, an organization, a belief system, a group... etc. I do not feel that atheists should tether themselves together like this.

[Darth Wong]

He did not exactly "rebut" the ideas that h0rus presented. At best, he addressed them obliquely. I believe his point to be an irrelevant semantical difference and do not feel as though it harms h0rus' opinion. And, frankly, there is no reason to rehash other people's statements. Although I do have something to add to his idea: I do not necessarily want myself associated with other atheists, nor do I want them associating themselves with me. Putting a symbol on something can only imply a few things: a structure, an organization, a belief system, a group... etc. I do not feel that atheists should tether themselves together like this.

I like the way you "refute" his point by simply stating a series of your personal opinions on it. Horus claimed it was nothing but grandstanding and snobbery, RedImp pointed out another possible motivation. How is that an "irrelevant semantical" or "oblique" response?

[haas mark]

The American Atheists symbol is a bit too busy. Perhaps something more like a giant A. A can stand for atheism, but it can also stand for anal sex!

Randomly, I am reminded of The Scarlet Letter. Damn liking classic novels.

[haas mark]

Perhaps a good symbol for atheists would be the scholar's cap (the black square thing you wear at graduation). Not only is this a recognizable object which is not patented or copyrighted by anyone, but it implicitly associates anti-atheist bigotry with suppression of intellectuals.

[EDIT] Scratch what I said previously. I had to reread that. How would it force the two together?

[Rock Lee]

I apologize that I am not an objective observer: I'm afraid that, much like every other member of the human race, my statements on hypothetical situations are opinions only.

For instance, I am of the opinion that Imposter's semantic argument is irrelevant because it makes nonexistent distinctions between two words and *still* reserves the "symbol" for a bracket where it does not belong.

I am also of the opinion that such a symbol serves the contradictory purpose of uniting together a group of people who hold conflicting and unreconcilable diffferences of opinion, and who in some cases do not *wish* to be united together.

I am also of the opinion that such a symbol provides no practical purpose other than forging an unwanted, un-asked-for bond between disparate groups.

[Darth Wong]

I apologize that I am not an objective observer: I'm afraid that, much like every other member of the human race, my statements on hypothetical situations are opinions only.

I do not require that you be objective; I require that your statements be based in something other than subjective opinion.

For instance, I am of the opinion that Imposter's semantic argument is irrelevant because it makes nonexistent distinctions between two words and *still* reserves the "symbol" for a bracket where it does not belong.

It is not a semantic argument to point out a third possible motivation where a previous person had insisted only two possibilities, moron. Do you even know what "semantics" means?

I am also of the opinion that such a symbol serves the contradictory purpose of uniting together a group of people who hold conflicting and unreconcilable diffferences of opinion, and who in some cases do not *wish* to be united together.

I see you didn't even bother reading RedImp's argument, which had nothing to do with uniting atheists or presuming commonality of beliefs and actually had to do with facilitating the creation of a public voice for the purpose of publicizing anti-atheist bigotry. He even gave the example of the pink triangle for gays, who do not all share the same beliefs or lifestyles, are only similar in one respect, and do not all choose to wear the pink triangle. I see the example, and the argument, both flew right over your head.

I am also of the opinion that such a symbol provides no practical purpose other than forging an unwanted, un-asked-for bond between disparate groups.

And yet again, you supply no reasoning whatsoever to refute his reasoning or support your opinion. Grow up.

[Rock Lee]

I do not require that you be objective; I require that your statements be based in something other than subjective opinion.

No offense, but let me ask a rules question here: this is an actual rule? As in, a bannable offense if you don't post in ways you deem acceptable? Posting something subjective, even something purely subjective (which this is not) is hardly trolling or spam...

Yeesh. Sorry I got you riled up. I just wanted to contribute my thoughts on the matter.

It is not a semantic argument to point out a third possible motivation where a previous person had insisted only two possibilities

His pointing out a possibility is based on creating a false semantic distinction between "atheism" and "atheists". Yes, I'm aware the words represent different things. What I mean by this is that all the arguments he used for why creating a symbol for "atheism" is bad are equally applicable to creating a symbol for "atheists". I have already listed why.

moron

Spare me, if you will.

Do you even know what "semantics" means?

Again, spare me the condescending tone. It contributes as little as you imply my opinion does, and is completely unnecessary. I'm being civil, even if you seriously hate my posting style.

I see you didn't even bother reading RedImp's argument, which had nothing to do with uniting atheists or presuming commonality of beliefs

Excuse me?

RedImp:
A symbol could be a useful unifying mark for atheists, a flag to rally around...

Yes... yes, it did.

actually had to do with facilitating the creation of a public voice for the purpose of publicizing anti-atheist bigotry.

This is, of course, a noble idea. However, it is one that is not found in this person's posts. Also, I disagree with the idea that I need a public voice in regards to my areligious nature. Public voices who ARE areligious, yes, but not ones claiming to speak for me.

He even gave the example of the pink triangle for gays, who do not all share the same beliefs or lifestyles, are only similar in one respect, and do not all choose to wear the pink triangle.

Amd I'm rather sure that some gays feel the same way that I do about their "symbol": that it is unnecessary, generalizes too much, and is inclusive where it shouldn't be.

I see the example, and the argument, both flew right over your head.

Is this really necessary?

And yet again, you supply no reasoning whatsoever to refute his reasoning or support your opinion

When I assert that something serves no practical purpose, I am not duty-bound to "support" this by, say, providing purposes it does not serve. That would be an attempt to prove a universal negative. I would, however, like to see practical purposes that are not negated by the harmful effects of such a symbol (I have, in fact, addressed the "unifying" purpose, which you claimed was never suggested).

Grow up.

How old are you? This is an honest question: no malice.

EDIT:

Added source for Imp's quote so as not to confuse it with Wong's quoted material.

[Darth Wong]

No offense, but let me ask a rules question here: this is an actual rule? As in, a bannable offense if you don't post in ways you deem acceptable? Posting something subjective, even something purely subjective (which this is not) is hardly trolling or spam...

Actually, it is considered useless spam here. We consider such posts to be worthless, and tolerate them only for entertainment value, which your participation in this thread is not. If you want to say somebody is wrong, you have to either back it up or shut up.

Yeesh. Sorry I got you riled up. I just wanted to contribute my thoughts on the matter.

You contributed nothing resembling "thoughts" so far.

It is not a semantic argument to point out a third possible motivation where a previous person had insisted only two possibilities

His pointing out a possibility is based on creating a false semantic distinction between "atheism" and "atheists". Yes, I'm aware the words represent different things. What I mean by this is that all the arguments he used for why creating a symbol for "atheism" is bad are equally applicable to creating a symbol for "atheists". I have already listed why.

No you have not. And it is idiotic to say that the only distinction between a group and the individual members of that group is semantic. A grouping is just that: a grouping based on some arbitrary categorization. In the case of atheists, they are as legitimate a group as any other; the fact that they are not a religion does not mean that they cannot be considered a sociological group.

Do you even know what "semantics" means?

Again, spare me the condescending tone. It contributes as little as you imply my opinion does, and is completely unnecessary. I'm being civil, even if you seriously hate my posting style.

Civility is less important around here than avoiding useless bullshit. And don't speak to me of condescension; all of your posts in this thread reek of it.

I see you didn't even bother reading RedImp's argument, which had nothing to do with uniting atheists or presuming commonality of beliefs

Excuse me?

RedImp:
A symbol could be a useful unifying mark for atheists, a flag to rally around...

Yes... yes, it did.

Wrong, asshole. Let's look at that quote in context, shall we?

However (and you knew there was a "however" coming), atheists, as a minority that's on the recieving end of a great deal of unadulterated bigotry, in a society which sees such bigotry as acceptable, could make good use of a symbol. In this case, the symbol would be of the community, not atheism itself. It's something similar to the pink triangle or the rainbow flag--they symbolize homosexuals and the homosexual community, not the biological condition of homosexuality. A symbol could be a useful unifying mark for atheists, a flag to rally around, especially since there's no universal creed for atheism (fundies have a tremendous advantage in being able to rally around the Bible--it's a unifying element for them, and a powerful one).

Oops, looks like he was talking about using it as a symbol of unification, not actually unifying atheists or giving them commonality of belief. In fact, he explicitly pointed out that we do not have a unifying creed of any kind; a little detail that you saw fit to snip out of your reply.

The symbol is simply something to create the appearance of some kind of cohesive social group. Do you need it spelled out in further detail for you?

actually had to do with facilitating the creation of a public voice for the purpose of publicizing anti-atheist bigotry.

This is, of course, a noble idea. However, it is one that is not found in this person's posts.

I suggest the purchase of new glasses. It appears that you fall into the category of people who read individual sentences but cannot collect them into the cohesive argument of the whole paragraph.

Also, I disagree with the idea that I need a public voice in regards to my areligious nature. Public voices who ARE areligious, yes, but not ones claiming to speak for me.

Then ignore them. Who the fuck said that it had to impact on you? You're telling other atheists that they should not do something because you don't want to be involved. Fine, don't be involved!

Amd I'm rather sure that some gays feel the same way that I do about their "symbol": that it is unnecessary, generalizes too much, and is inclusive where it shouldn't be.

None of which substantiates any accusation that there is no conceivable reason other than arrogance to have one.

I see the example, and the argument, both flew right over your head.

Is this really necessary?

Apparently yes, since you have taken the position that other atheists should not be doing something which you don't personally want to be involved in, while simultaneously claiming that atheists should not even consider themselves as a group. If they aren't a group, why do you even give a shit what these other atheists do? And how do you support your assertion (implicitly made by stating your agreement with Horus) that there is no reason other than arrogance to have a symbol? RedImp pointed out another possible reason which I reiterated for you (and which you quietly conceded to be reasonable, although you insist that RedImp never stated it), ergo this is the part where you're supposed to admit you were wrong.

And yet again, you supply no reasoning whatsoever to refute his reasoning or support your opinion

When I assert that something serves no practical purpose, I am not duty-bound to "support" this by, say, providing purposes it does not serve. That would be an attempt to prove a universal negative.

Strawman bullshit. When a practical purpose has already been proposed despite your surface-skimming denials, you are stating that the purpose is false. You must substantiate this claim.

I would, however, like to see practical purposes that are not negated by the harmful effects of such a symbol (I have, in fact, addressed the "unifying" purpose, which you claimed was never suggested).

You "addressed" it by taking a quote out of context and ignoring the larger point which was that there was a purpose that you refused to acknowledge. Congratulations

Grow up.

How old are you? This is an honest question: no malice.

Old enough to know sophistry when I see it.

[His Divine Shadow]

Just to fuck with the fundies who like to pull that atheism <-> stalin bullshit this could be used:

[Darth Wong]

Just to fuck with the fundies who like to pull that atheism <-> stalin bullshit this could be used:

They wouldn't get it. If you want to fuck with fundies you could make the symbol a big dildo. When they try to censor it you can claim that it's religious discrimination.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Best part of that is you could claim that the symbolism of the dildo is that it represents all those who were fucked by religion throughout the ages.

[Rye]

I'd imagine the ugly lesbian feminists would claim discrimination or that atheists are part of the "Phallocratic conspiracy". But who needs ugly lesbian feminists anyway?

[CrimsonRaine]

Another sibling? Yay!

(I'm not an atheist, so I can't really add much else. )

'Raine

[General Zod]

Just to fuck with the fundies who like to pull that atheism <-> stalin bullshit this could be used:

They wouldn't get it. If you want to fuck with fundies you could make the symbol a big dildo. When they try to censor it you can claim that it's religious discrimination.

Shinto already has claims on the erect phallus as a religious symbol.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Just to fuck with the fundies who like to pull that atheism <-> stalin bullshit this could be used:

They wouldn't get it. If you want to fuck with fundies you could make the symbol a big dildo. When they try to censor it you can claim that it's religious discrimination.

Shinto already has claims on the erect phallus as a religious symbol.

That gives new meaning to the phrase 'worshiping his cock'...

[Rock Lee]

Actually, it is considered useless spam here. We consider such posts to be worthless, and tolerate them only for entertainment value, which your participation in this thread is not.

I'll leave my thoughts about this policy at the door, since they're off tipic here.

You contributed nothing resembling "thoughts" so far.

Oh, please. If you're going to make vapid insults, do make them applicable. Yes, I clearly posted my thoughts on the matter. You can insult and demean those ideas (which you do), but can you at least PRETEND you are civil?

No you have not.

We can go at this all day. Suffice it to say that, yes, I DID list why I think creating a symbol for atheists is wrong. I don't see how, in one section of your post, you can respond to my reasons and insult them, and then in another section, claim I never posted any reasoning at all. I mean, are you just trying to cover all your bases here?

And it is idiotic to say that the only distinction between a group and the individual members of that group is semantic.

Which is irrelevant, since that is not what I said. In context, I was referring to the semantic distinction between "a symbol for atheism" and "a symbol for atheists".

A grouping is just that: a grouping based on some arbitrary categorization. In the case of atheists, they are as legitimate a group as any other; the fact that they are not a religion does not mean that they cannot be considered a sociological group.

I'm well aware that "atheists" are a group in the literal, sociological sense. That does not mean that the trait they share is meaningful in discerning their opinions or goals, or that said trait constitutes a meaningful unifying factor. I suppose it is true that I am in the sociological group of white Americans. I do not, however, think that treating this shared quality as the basis for an organized, cohesive group is a good idea, since the fact that I share this quality with others is essentially meaningless in determining anything else.

Civility is less important around here than avoiding useless bullshit.

Take a look at this. What, exactly, did you gain by referring to my statements as "useless bullshit"? Hm? Does that make your argument any more compelling? Or does it make you look like someone who simply uses insults to cover up the inadequacies in your argument.

And don't speak to me of condescension; all of your posts in this thread reek of it.

What the hell kind of argument is this? "Nuh uh, you're doing it too!" Since when is this line of reasoning EVER valid? Note, also, the implicit concession that you are, in fact, unnecessarily condescending and juvenile. You merely justify it by saying "Oh, well, he did it first!"

Wrong, asshole. Let's look at that quote in context, shall we?

Oh, great. A context argument. You debate like a fundamentalist Christian defending the Bible, only with more swears.

Oops, looks like he was talking about using it as a symbol of unification, not actually unifying atheists or giving them commonality of belief.

This is, quite simply, false. Saying that something is a flag to rally around doesn't mean "rally SYMBOLICALLY". And, for all your michmash about "context", that merely strengthens my point. Notice, Wong, that he compares the unifying power of an atheist symbol to the unifying power of the Bible. Now, what is he doing here? Calling the Bible a symbol of unification, or an actual point around which the Christian religion rallies? No arguments for context here: he uses the exact same language to refer to both.

But it is rather meaningless to debate the intentions of someone else's words, so I'll let RedImp clarify when he notices this post next. I merely end with the fact that the assertion that RedImp's argument had nothing to do with uniting atheists is blatantly false.

In fact, he explicitly pointed out that we do not have a unifying creed of any kind

And what would the purpose of the symbol be, Wong? To CREATE such a unifying mark.

I'm just directly quoting the man, here.

The symbol is simply something to create the appearance of some kind of cohesive social group.

I know that. Do you think talking to me like a child makes you more of an adult? It doesn't, Wong. Atheists are not a cohesive social group. Atheism is not a philosophically, socially, or politically binding trait.

Do you need it spelled out in further detail for you?

You need to realize that statements like these create nothing useful. Just stop. There is utterly no reason why we have to stoop to this level unless you create a reason.

I suggest the purchase of new glasses.

I am defeated by your witty suggestion!

It appears that you fall into the category of people who read individual sentences but cannot collect them into the cohesive argument of the whole paragraph.

And you, on the other hand, fall into the category of someone who does not read the sentences in someone's post but instead apparently pulls interpretations out of the air, as you did with your desperate gambit to deflect the "unification" idea. OBVIOUSLY, if you had read it, you would never have mentioned the idea that it "had nothing to do with uniting atheists", which is really, really obviously false.

But we all make mistakes.

Then ignore them. Who the fuck said that it had to impact on you?

You, when you said that the purpose of such a symbol would be the creation of a public voice for atheists.

EDIT: Actually you said it would publicize bigotry, but I assume, as I did in the previous post, that you meant "publicize refutations of anti-atheist bigotry". Just correcting a typo.

You're telling other atheists that they should not do something because you don't want to be involved.

They should not do something that claims to involve or represent me, which such a symbol would invariably do.

None of which substantiates any accusation that there is no conceivable reason other than arrogance to have one.

I do not presume to speak for h0rus, but he hardly stated that the only reason for such a symbol was arrogance. Just that the creation of such a symbol was primarily so much " cheesy grandstanding".

Now, I don't know about the cheesy part, but when you choose arrogant, in-your-face symbols like a scholar's cap, are you grandstanding around and parading your supposedly superior intellect around?

Yes.

RedImp pointed out another possible reason which I reiterated for you (and which you quietly conceded to be reasonable, although you insist that RedImp never stated it)

He didn't, and I called your idea "noble". It is. I support the creation of a thinktank-esque group who publishes material refuting popular anti-atheist bigotry, which is, I think, what you were proposing.

None of that, however, has a damn thing to do with making a universal atheist symbol.

Old enough to know sophistry when I see it.

No, really. How old are you? I'll be honest; I'm just a college student.

I don't want to start off on the wrong foot here, but you're certainly not the ideal welcoming party.

EDIT:

Post cut short due to time restraints.

[Darth Wong]

And it is idiotic to say that the only distinction between a group and the individual members of that group is semantic.

Which is irrelevant, since that is not what I said. In context, I was referring to the semantic distinction between "a symbol for atheism" and "a symbol for atheists".

And I was explaining that this is NOT a semantic distinction, moron. Atheism is a concept. Atheists are a sociological group.

I'm well aware that "atheists" are a group in the literal, sociological sense. That does not mean that the trait they share is meaningful in discerning their opinions or goals, or that said trait constitutes a meaningful unifying factor. I suppose it is true that I am in the sociological group of white Americans. I do not, however, think that treating this shared quality as the basis for an organized, cohesive group is a good idea, since the fact that I share this quality with others is essentially meaningless in determining anything else.

If white Americans were as oppressed and marginalized in America as atheists were (to the point that no white American had a hope in hell of ever getting elected to high office, as is the case with atheists), then you would have no choice but to share that state of oppression with other white Americans. Hence, you would have a group which merits some kind of public voice. What part of this do you not comprehend?

Civility is less important around here than avoiding useless bullshit.

Take a look at this. What, exactly, did you gain by referring to my statements as "useless bullshit"? Hm?

Take a look at this. What, exactly, did you gain by harping endlessly on my manners? Hm?

Does that make your argument any more compelling? Or does it make you look like someone who simply uses insults to cover up the inadequacies in your argument.

Does that make your argument any more compelling? Or does it make you look like someone who simply uses style over substance fallacies to cover up the inadequacies in your argument?

And don't speak to me of condescension; all of your posts in this thread reek of it.

What the hell kind of argument is this? "Nuh uh, you're doing it too!"

Since you were not making a logical argument by whining about my condescension, I saw no need to refute it with one. Do you know what a logical argument is, moron? You make an argument, I refute it. When you whine that I'm not respecting you, that is not an argument, hence it does not merit a logical rebuttal.

Since when is this line of reasoning EVER valid? Note, also, the implicit concession that you are, in fact, unnecessarily condescending and juvenile. You merely justify it by saying "Oh, well, he did it first!"

More "style over substance" whining.

Oh, great. A context argument. You debate like a fundamentalist Christian defending the Bible, only with more swears.

More "style over substance" whining.

Oops, looks like he was talking about using it as a symbol of unification, not actually unifying atheists or giving them commonality of belief.

This is, quite simply, false. Saying that something is a flag to rally around doesn't mean "rally SYMBOLICALLY".

The flag is a symbol, moron. No one is saying that all atheists have to rally around it, any more than all gays have to rally around the pink triangle. It can be used that way, but the overall objective is to remind people that we're here, we're atheist, get used to it.

And, for all your michmash about "context", that merely strengthens my point. Notice, Wong, that he compares the unifying power of an atheist symbol to the unifying power of the Bible. Now, what is he doing here? Calling the Bible a symbol of unification, or an actual point around which the Christian religion rallies? No arguments for context here: he uses the exact same language to refer to both.

Yet again you ignore the fact that he explicitly DOES differentiate by saying that there is no unifying creed for atheists, unlike the Bible. The Bible is more than just a symbol; it is a creed.

But it is rather meaningless to debate the intentions of someone else's words, so I'll let RedImp clarify when he notices this post next. I merely end with the fact that the assertion that RedImp's argument had nothing to do with uniting atheists is blatantly false.

The main thrust of RedImp's argument was that atheists are an invisible oppressed social group and that the symbol might help. That central argument did, indeed, have nothing to do with unifying atheists or arguing that they have commonality of belief (something else you claimed he said and have quietly been ignoring). If you want to claim that he said something at one point that might have been interpreted that way, that's your problem.

In fact, he explicitly pointed out that we do not have a unifying creed of any kind

And what would the purpose of the symbol be, Wong? To CREATE such a unifying mark.

I'm just directly quoting the man, here.

I see you don't even know what "creed" means

The symbol is simply something to create the appearance of some kind of cohesive social group.

I know that. Do you think talking to me like a child makes you more of an adult?

Too bad; you're acting like a child. You claimed that RedImp's argument was about unifying atheists and claiming that they have a common creed, when he in fact said that they have no such creed and that the objective is simply to create a symbol of unity so that we can look like any other social group instead of remaining invisibly oppressed.

It doesn't, Wong. Atheists are not a cohesive social group. Atheism is not a philosophically, socially, or politically binding trait.

No one said it was, dumb-ass. What part of "no unifying creed" do you not understand? Your strawman distortions and endless style over substance fallacies will not avail you.

Do you need it spelled out in further detail for you?

You need to realize that statements like these create nothing useful. Just stop. There is utterly no reason why we have to stoop to this level unless you create a reason.

Sure there's a reason; you insist on style over substance fallacies, harping endlessly on your opponent's behaviour instead of his argument, distorting the argument, and pretending that one is proposing that all atheists share a common creed even when it was explicitly stated otherwise.

I suggest the purchase of new glasses.

I am defeated by your witty suggestion!

More "style over substance" whining.

It appears that you fall into the category of people who read individual sentences but cannot collect them into the cohesive argument of the whole paragraph.

And you, on the other hand, fall into the category of someone who does not read the sentences in someone's post but instead apparently pulls interpretations out of the air, as you did with your desperate gambit to deflect the "unification" idea. OBVIOUSLY, if you had read it, you would never have mentioned the idea that it "had nothing to do with uniting atheists, which is really, really obviously false.

It has to do with creating a SYMBOL, not with ACTUALLY making all atheists think, act, or believe the same things, moron.

But we all make mistakes.

Then ignore them. Who the fuck said that it had to impact on you?

You, when you said that the purpose of such a symbol would be the creation of a public voice for atheists.

More of your strawman bullshit. The creation of a public symbol for atheists would not impact on you any more than the existence of the term "atheist" does.

EDIT: Actually you said it would publicize bigotry, but I assume, as I did in the previous post, that you meant "publicize refutations of anti-atheist bigotry". Just correcting a typo.

You're telling other atheists that they should not do something because you don't want to be involved.

They should not do something that claims to involve or represent me, which such a symbol would invariably do.

"Involve or represent" are two different concepts. Nice try conjoining them like that. As a middle-class man of Asian descent, I am already represented by numerous public-interest groups and lobbies; none of this impacts me unless they somehow hurt my interests.

None of which substantiates any accusation that there is no conceivable reason other than arrogance to have one.

I do not presume to speak for h0rus, but he hardly stated that the only reason for such a symbol was arrogance. Just that the creation of such a symbol was primarily so much " cheesy grandstanding".

Now, I don't know about the cheesy part, but when you choose arrogant, in-your-face symbols like a scholar's cap, are you grandstanding around and parading your supposedly superior intellect around?

Yes.

Irrelevant, since you are now trying to change the subject to the nature of the symbol rather than the concept of a symbol. Nice try at changing the subject, though.

RedImp pointed out another possible reason which I reiterated for you (and which you quietly conceded to be reasonable, although you insist that RedImp never stated it)

He didn't, and I called your idea "noble". It is. I support the creation of a thinktank-esque group who publishes material refuting popular anti-atheist bigotry, which is, I think, what you were proposing.

None of that, however, has a damn thing to do with making a universal atheist symbol.

What, so this thinktank should not have a fucking symbol? No logos? Perhaps it should be called the Nameless Thinktank?

Old enough to know sophistry when I see it.

No, really. How old are you? I'll be honest; I'm just a college student.

And you act like it.

I don't want to start off on the wrong foot here, but you're certainly not the ideal welcoming party.

EDIT:

Post cut short due to time restraints.

Nobody forced you to immediately resort to a shitstorm of sophistry as soon as you were challenged.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Where the fuck did this shitstorm come from?

[Icehawk]

I don't see an atheist symbol being a "Hey look at me Im atheist!!!111" but more of a "Yes, contrary to your faith based fantasies, their are people out there who do not believe in your God(s) and are not afraid to show it anymore".

In otherwords, its helps to send a message to people of any religion who feel that the world and all its people somehow revolves around their faith.

[RedImperator]

Well, this is interesting, isn't it? Mike has already pretty much made my argument for me, and much more effectively than I could. I'll just boil down my own thoughts to a few points here:

1. I've yet to see anyone demonstrate how the difference between atheism and atheists is one of semantics. At any rate, I notice Rock has been progressively backpeadling away from that, to "athiests are a sociological group, but one without any common interests", comparing atheism to white skin. This is simply absurd: in an ideal universe, yes, atheists would have no common interests, but in the real world, a major party US presidential candidate can say, "I don't consider atheists citizens" and get away with it. I hate using the tired language of victimhood here, but atheists are one of the last groups against whom it's fashionable to be bigoted. That IS a unifying common interest, one which transcends all sociological and ideological barriers within the athiest population. To say that atheists don't have a common interest because atheism is not a creed is like saying a gay Wall Street investment banker and a gay Marxist professor have no common interest because homosexualty isn't a creed.

2. At no point did I suggest CREATING a common creed for athiesm. Rock accuses me of making arguments based on semantics, then turns around and somehow parses "a symbol will become a common creed" from one sentence (with a parenthetical aside) that's JUST ambiguous enough to be interpeted that way if you completely ignore the rest of the post (or you've already come to a conclusion and you're cherry picking evidence).

3. I'd criticize Rock's ridiculous "a symbol for atheists will force all atheists to think and act the same" argument, but since he hasn't actually made any attempt to support it, there's nothing to attack. That's a strategy, I suppose.

4. For someone who's apparently so concerned about civility in debate, Rock had no problem throwing insults at someone who wasn't even an active participant in the discussion at the time (or perhaps he thought I missed the "Imposter" snipe).