My New Favorite Atheist Logo

Forget the Out campaign,

or this one,

or any of these.

This one says it all.

Atheist Mantis

[Stolen, blatantly, from T-Shirt Hell – go buy the shirt]

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!

free stats

38 thoughts on “My New Favorite Atheist Logo

  1. 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!

    😉

  2. Pingback: Tales from the Tubes — 07/​10/​09 | Young Australian Skeptics

  3. 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.

  4. 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).

  5. ..the legs are not attached to the correct body part,

    How ironic! SI’s new favorite atheist logo implies a false claim about science.

  6. 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.

  7. 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. 8)

    • 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!

      😆

  8. 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.

    • 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!)

      😀

  9. Speedy Inductor,

    Sorry, cl, you jumped on that one without thinking, now, didn’t you? I didn’t offer the logo as a claim about science.

    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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

    • Ildiot… there might be a woman under that exoskeleton you’re sporting, too, if one could get past the protruding mandibles and dripping goo!

      😉

  12. I was “nitpicking to be funny” too, (((Billy))). Lighten up already.

    ildi,

    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.

    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.

  13. 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.

  14. ..I tend to respond forcefully to being called a liar

    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.

  15. 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.

  16. ….I tend to respond forcefully to being called a liar

    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.”

  17. 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.

    • Glad you like it. I found a picture of another praying mantis, all stretched out, ready for his crucifixion. It’s now my banner.

      Nice to see there are youth (that means anyone younger than me) that are willing to declare their atheism.

Comments are closed.