My New Favorite Atheist Logo
Forget the Out campaign,
or this one,
or any of these.
This one says it all.
[Stolen, blatantly, from T-Shirt Hell - go buy the shirt]
SPANISH INQUISITOR
No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition!
Further Inquiry
Sheer Profundity
Recent Inquisitions
- Can Science Be Funny?
- Blasphemy, Redux
- The Concert For Darwin
- He Said I Could!
- Billboard Vandalism
- In Science News
- For Gideon
- Atheism 3.0?
- 250000!
- My New Favorite Atheist Logo
Discussion
- Denominations
- Freethought Forum
- FreeThoughtPedia Forum
- Heathen Hangout
- Internet Infidels
- Rants ‘n Raves
- Richard Dawkins
- Skeptic Friends Network
- The Atheist Toolbox
- Think Humanism
Faithfreeosphere
- (((Billy))) the Atheist
- A Load of Bright
- An Apostate’s Chapel
- Atheist Ethicist
- Atheist Revolution (vjack)
- Black Sun Journal
- Blue Linchpin
- Daylight Atheism
- Debunking Christianity
- Eliptica
- Enonomi
- evanescent
- Evolutionary Middleman
- Exercise in Futility
- Flumadiddle
- Friendly Atheist
- Greta Christina’s Blog
- Grumpy Lion
- Ironwolf
- Letters From A Broad
- No More Hornets
- On Leaving Fundamentalist Christianity
- Primordial Blog
- Reason v. Apologetics
- Right to Think (yunshui)
- Sean the Blogonaut
- Tales of an Ordinary Girl
- The Bad Idea Blog
- The Bad News Bible
- The Greenbelt
- The Latin Fallacy
- the meme pool:
- Why Don’t You Blog
- You Made Me Say It
Horrorscopes
Humor
- Atheist Cartoons
- Atheist Eve
- Flea Snobbery
- Fundies Say The Darndest Things
- Jesus and Mo
- Last Suppers
- Religious Comics
- Russell’s Teapot
- The Stubborn Curmudgeon
Podcasts
Political/Topical
Reason
Science
Websites
- Ask the Atheists
- Christopher Hitchens
- Ebon Musings
- Edge
- FreeThoughtPedia
- Friends of Charles Darwin
- Infidel Guy
- Richard Dawkins
- Sam Harris
- Talk Origins
- The Freethinker (UK)
Currently Reading
Book Reviews
THE DEVIL IN DOVER by Lauri Lebo
THE BETRAYAL OF AMERICA by Vincent Bugliosi
THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER by Vincent Bugliosi
WHY I REJECTED CHRISTIANITY by John W. Loftus
NBL BOOK DISCUSSIONS
A ROOM OF ONE'S OWN by Virginia Woolf
NOT THE END OF THE WORLD by Christopher Brookmyre
Carnival for THE PLAGUE by Albert Camus
THE SPARROW by Mary Doria Russell
Favorite Quote
Miscellania
ANOTHER GODDAMNED PODCAST
Tired of reading atheistic rants? Would you rather be able to sit back and listen to them? Then check out
where some of your favorite bloggers get together to discuss whatever the hell they want to discuss, in an effort to get god to damn them too.
_______________________
Historical Perspective
Blog Stats
- 263,010 mildly inquisitive visitors (including 1 Mexican troll)
That IS awesome!
jim
6 October 2009 at 11:31 PM
Yeah, great! Hey, check out my submission here, fellas!
This’ll go good with your tinfoil hats and especially for Jimbo and his rubber boots!
Gideon
7 October 2009 at 3:45 AM
[...] The next-gen atheist logo. [...]
Tales from the Tubes — 07/10/09 | Young Australian Skeptics
7 October 2009 at 3:53 AM
Yes, that’s truly a great find. Very cool!
1minionsopinion
7 October 2009 at 9:45 AM
I gotta admit, Gideon’s version is pretty funny.
the chaplain
7 October 2009 at 8:31 PM
Yes, but not quite evolutionarily correct.
Spanish Inquisitor
7 October 2009 at 9:41 PM
“not quite evolutionarily correct” LOLLOL !!
cl
8 October 2009 at 5:59 PM
That’s very amusing – the praying mantis, decidedly NOT praying.
efrique
7 October 2009 at 11:32 PM
It’s a preying mantis.
Anyway, as a former student of Tang Lang Chuan, or 7 Star Mantis, I approve of the mantis logo.
PhillyChief
8 October 2009 at 12:28 PM
I thought you were a student of Yu Fat Tu, 7-Course Manatee, Chief?
Gideon
11 October 2009 at 3:36 AM
That logo reminds me of a girl I used to date…not physically, but the stance, attitude, and what you’d get if you got too close are captured in that picture.
SI, have you read Victor Koman’s, “The Jehovah Contract”? Pretty good logos described therein.
Sarge
8 October 2009 at 7:07 PM
No, can’t say that I have, but the Amazon blurb looks interesting.
Spanish Inquisitor
9 October 2009 at 12:41 PM
I like the mantis logo but, being the annoying twit that I am, I have to point out that the legs are not attached to the correct body part (the legs should not be attached to the abdomen, but rather the throrax).
(((Billy)))
10 October 2009 at 7:54 AM
How ironic! SI’s new favorite atheist logo implies a false claim about science.
cl
10 October 2009 at 4:10 PM
No, it is not a false claim, it is an incorrect illustration. And, if you look at the image, it was most likely done intentionally in an attempt at anthropomorphizing the mantis. An anthropomorphic cartoon representation of an animal is not science.
(((Billy)))
10 October 2009 at 4:47 PM
Thanks (((Billy))). Absolutely correct.
Sorry, cl, you jumped on that one without thinking, now, didn’t you? I didn’t offer the logo as a claim about science. Perhaps you didn’t see the “humor” tag there.
Spanish Inquisitor
10 October 2009 at 4:54 PM
My version was the anatomically-correct one, SI. Thick bulbous head atop spindly legs…
The same overall description of Philly Chief, with the addition of a thick bulbous body!
Gideon
11 October 2009 at 3:44 AM
The depths of quibbling that cl will go to.
Quite frankly I love the little bugger. The cranky “no, I WON’T” facial expression made my morning.
That Other Guy
10 October 2009 at 9:25 PM
(15, 21, 23, 35, 36, 38, 40, 60, 77, 81, 88, 95, 97)
quantum_flux
11 October 2009 at 1:36 AM
Those the ages of all the women you’ve had, Quiff?
(Starting from 60 up… the others are estimates of his I.Q., reading right to left!)
Gideon
11 October 2009 at 3:50 AM
Speedy Inductor,
I didn’t say you did, did I? So in reality, it’s you who jumped: note that my claim in its entirety was, “How ironic! SI’s new favorite atheist logo implies a false claim about science.”
Nowhere in that claim did I imply you offered the logo as a claim about science. I just thought it was wildly ironic that your new favorite atheist logo implies a false claim about science. (((Billy))) can equivocate by saying “incorrect representation” all he wants.
And mind you my comment is was just as tongue in cheek as anyone else’s in this thread.
cl
11 October 2009 at 5:35 PM
Typical cl being cl. OK. You didn’t do whatever it was I said you did. Happy?
(I guess he didn’t see the smiley face either.)
Spanish Inquisitor
11 October 2009 at 6:10 PM
An anatomically incorrect representation of an insects morphology is not “impl[ying] a false claim about science.” Does Charlie Brown’s head imply a false claim about hydrocephalism? Does Pumba the Warthog’s ability to talk and sing imply a false claim about the linguistic and oratorical skills of warthogs? It would if your view of the world focuses on the denigration of observable natural phenomena and nitpicking to score points (I was nitpicking to be funny (yes, there is a difference (and most people understand))).
If the mantis were in a textbook focusing upon insect anatomy, it would be “a false claim about science.” If the mantis accompanied a post about certain species of the mantis family, then, no question, it would be a “false claim about science.” If the mantis drawing is meant as a humourous cartoon, then no way in hell is it a “false claim about science.”
I really don’t think I was equivocating. If you insist that I was, then, once again, we are using different definitions of the same word.
(((Billy)))
11 October 2009 at 7:26 PM
I really think that there is a brain lurking behind cl’s ADHD tendencies… I haven’t given up hope yet. Time (or medication) will tell.
ildi
12 October 2009 at 12:32 PM
Ildiot… there might be a woman under that exoskeleton you’re sporting, too, if one could get past the protruding mandibles and dripping goo!
Gideon
19 October 2009 at 10:22 PM
I was “nitpicking to be funny” too, (((Billy))). Lighten up already.
ildi,
I can only chuckle when you say stuff like that, as it reveals more about you than me. I really think there’s a nice, non-judgmental person behind your tendencies of arrogance, too. I haven’t given up hope yet.
cl
14 October 2009 at 12:17 AM
CL: I was responding to your second comment in which you said, “(((Billy))) can equivocate by saying “incorrect representation” all he wants.” Odd, I read my first and second comments up above and see no equivocation (To avoid making an explicit statement. See Synonyms: lie). If someone calls me liar, I respond. And I tend to respond forcefully to being called a liar (or equivocator). So sorry, CL; next time I’ll run it past you to determine what my response to being called a liar should be.
Wait. No, I won’t.
(((Billy)))
14 October 2009 at 7:47 AM
For FSM’s sake ya hardhead, quit jumping to conclusions – I didn’t call you a liar – I said you equivocated when you said, it’s not a “false claim about science,” it’s an “incorrect representation.” As in, they’re essentially the same thing. As in, nice tautology, (((Billy))).
If I wanted to call you a liar – or anything else – I would. I wouldn’t need to hide behind big words. Now, can we let this one die already?
And to think, all of this from an attempted roast. Some of you guys need to lighten up.
cl
14 October 2009 at 12:49 PM
CL: Since you are fond of tossing around definitions: from Princeton (via Google): beat around the bush: be deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead or withhold information. From Free Dictionary:
1. To use equivocal language intentionally.
2. To avoid making an explicit statement. See Synonyms at lie.
You said that I equivocated on 11 October, 2009 at 5:35 when you wrote “(((Billy))) can equivocate by saying “incorrect representation” all he wants.” My description of the drawing as being an incorrect representation was not an equivocation, it was not a lie.
(((Billy)))
14 October 2009 at 1:55 PM
I could just as easily retort with definitions of equivocate that don’t entail accusations of liar, but what’s the point? Nobody called you a liar. I do not use “equivocate” and “lie” as synonyms, nor does the rest of the world, (((Billy))). Now, if your only concern was that somebody was potentially calling you a liar – now that I’ve clearly established that wasn’t the case – get over it and quit trying to tell me what I was thinking.
If you’re tempted to continue gassing on about definitions, Google “tautology” while you’re at it, then Google “faith” and fix the pertinent entries on your blog. Then complain about “tossing around definitions.”
cl
14 October 2009 at 8:12 PM
CL: I was not deliberately ambiguous. Nor was I ambiguous with an intent to decieve.
Goodbye.
(((Billy)))
15 October 2009 at 7:41 AM
I’m not sure if there is an intelligent brain behind most people’s tendencies. Random chaos, it seems, explains most people’s opinions in the world, especially Gideon’s opinions.
quantum_flux
15 October 2009 at 9:52 PM
:0
quantum_flux
15 October 2009 at 9:53 PM
Isn’t random chaos a Dawkininian term describing the conversations between infidels, QF?
Gideon
19 October 2009 at 10:18 PM