151. Comment #59456 by Wrought on July 29, 2007 at 5:56 am

I still think I'd rather wear something without the site advertising, and I think the A is a bit rubbish. I'd rather go on eBay and get a comedy atheist t-shirt or perhaps just stick to my little Darwin-fish badge. Perhaps if they come up with something less in-your-face and tacky looking I might go for it. Just my opinion. I live in the UK, so I'd rather start a polite conversation about athiesm over a jokey t-shirt than start explaining what my A stood for like some bible-basher going door to door.

Other Comments by Wrought

152. Comment #59459 by mjwemdee on July 29, 2007 at 6:19 am

Veronique (Comment #59411) - Thanks for your comment. I agree I should have clearer thoughts about this one rather than 'gut-feelings' but hey, I'm human.
I think my present position is more similar to Wrought's Comment #59456 although the actual design of the 'A' is fine by me.

For those who have been saying - 'Oh come on, it's just a T-shirt' - no, it's not JUST a t-shirt. A T-shirt with nothing on it would be just a T-shirt.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

153. Comment #59460 by newatheist on July 29, 2007 at 6:19 am

I wanted to stay out of the bickering but what the hell…

155. Comment #59454 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 5:32 am

I (and everyone else emphasis added) will simply assume that you're one who is afraid to admit when they are wrong.

Well, don't speak for me, IQ182.

Speaking for myself, I couldn't give a shit. You already showed your "look how good I am" wanker pretentiousness on another thread. Whatever you say it's all "look how good I am". As I recall I said "screw you". Not wanting to speak for Yorker, I think s/he's about to do likewise.

Other Comments by newatheist

154. Comment #59461 by BillySands on July 29, 2007 at 6:25 am

It certainly beats wearing a dead jewish blasphemer on a stick.

Bizzaro, How's those pesky toothed chickens going down with your creationist delusion? You seem to have run away without addressing the issue

Other Comments by BillySands

155. Comment #59463 by Zeus on July 29, 2007 at 6:35 am

I'm atheist & proud that I am independent of thought enough to come to this position.

I also would never wear this t-shirt. It is in my opinion - pointless, tacky and embarressing. The same as wearing a religious cross, a t-shirt with a big nike tick logo on the front...etc.

If I want to express my views or beliefs I use my words not some awful t-shirt.

Other Comments by Zeus

156. Comment #59466 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 6:40 am

New Atheist

Be fair. I was not the one who started the ad hominems. I would far rather discuss the issues than resort to such tactics. Yet I am criticised and ridiculed for my nickname, despite having then given an account of why it was chosen? What exactly have I done wrong.

Incidentally, if you read my initial post and then read Yorker's reaction, I really do think you'd agree with me that he was going a bit wacky in calling me to task. I mean, for what! Expressing a personal preference as to a matter of taste? Give me a break...

p.s:~ I accept that I shouldn't speak for anyone except myself, and this is what I normally do. even you can see that the reference above was simply for rhetorical effect (i.e. and everyone else).

Other Comments by IQHQ

157. Comment #59467 by firemancarl on July 29, 2007 at 6:42 am

I just wanna know if we're going to get something set up where we can put up pics of us in our fancy t-shirts! Count me in!

Other Comments by firemancarl

158. Comment #59472 by Severus Snape on July 29, 2007 at 7:20 am

Apparently I need to spell this out: Having "RichardDawkins.net" on the front of the shirt helps identify what the 'A' means (atheist, as opposed to adulterer). This design combines an advertisement for the website with an identifier for the 'A.'

What website did you come to today that allows you to spew venom back at its new projects? Do some of you really think that it is embarrassing to advertise it on a T-shirt? If you enjoy the discussion here, spread the word about it! Or don't, just don't waste comment space telling everyone else you won't. And if you have so much free time, please, get busy and start your own campaign!

Well, Josh, I have enough free time to read this thread and respond to your comment. I think the problem is that you are mixing up a campaign to promote atheism with a promotional campaign for this website. The Out Campaign website appears to be a unique creature, for a worthy purpose, but then the shirt refers to the Richard Dawkins website and thus appears purely promotional for this website. That, essentially, is one of the problems a lot of commentators have noted, and it is a direct result of the way you set up the campaign (or, erm, the shirt). You don't need 'RichardDawkins.net' on the shirt to "identify what the 'A' means" (there are other options). I agree with the others who noted that a reference to the Out Campaign website would be more appropriate.

Other Comments by Severus Snape

159. Comment #59473 by MrEmpirical on July 29, 2007 at 7:25 am

I just had this thought:

It might be a good thing that the t-shirt doesn't explicitly refer to atheism. Why? Because people might not be drawn to initiate a dialogue with someone wearing an unambiguously atheistic t-shirt. The 'A' is intriguing and mysterious, and the website URL is not widely known, so people will be drawn to ask about the meaning of the t-shirt. This will provide numerous opportunities to discuss atheism and all of the interesting reading material that can be found on this site. I can just imagine a likely scenario: "Hey, that's an interesting t-shirt, what does the 'A' stand for?" "It stands for atheism. I happen to be concerned about the influence of religion in the world, and so I want to make atheism a bit more visible." Perhaps a conversation would flow from there. If the t-shirt simply said "atheist", perhaps certain people (such as those waivering between theism and atheism) would not be enticed into dialogue. Just a thought.

By the way, I don't know anything about IQHQ's alleged history of "wanker pretentiousness", but I agree with him on the current issue. If he wants to say that the t-shirt is "cringe-worthy", fine. If someone else wants to say that the t-shirt is "totally awesome and cool", will Yorker take them to task for being too forceful with their opinion? Some people only take issue with those with whom they disagree, which is pretty hypocritical. Also, why pick on IQHQ just because of his name? Talk about ad hominem. Even if someone wanted to call themselves "I'm super awesome and the best", who cares? It's just an internet handle. I mean, I call myself "MrEmpirical". Does that mean I always present empirically sound arguments, or that I can always be trusted to brandish the best empirical data? No. It's just a name. For all we knew, IQHQ could have worked at the CIA headquarters, i.e. an "intelligence headquarters", so to jump to the conclusion that his name is self-aggrandizing or even self-referential was inappropriate (yes, we now know that his name IS self-referential, but no one knew that originally).

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

160. Comment #59474 by cinkcool on July 29, 2007 at 7:30 am

I fully agree with Severus Snape. Instead of being solely about atheism, it becomes a shameless plug. The Out Campaign website, (for me) preferably on the back, would be a better option. I like that the 'A' alone would provide a little mystery, and might start conversation merely because of that. Then the website is on the back.

Other Comments by cinkcool

161. Comment #59475 by debaser71 on July 29, 2007 at 7:42 am

A lot of comments, but here's mine anyway.

I like the "scarlet letter" idea but I just don't like the font of the "A" on the shirt. Anyway I hope others come out with variations of the same idea but with, for me, a better looking shirt. Plus I generally stay away from black or white shirts and stick with gray, blue, deep green etc.

eta: ahh I see there are other colors from the order website...Also today is my birthday yay. 36.

Other Comments by debaser71

162. Comment #59480 by baal on July 29, 2007 at 7:54 am

It seems as though this debate is largely between people who wear T-shirts with logos of allegiance on them anyway and don't really see a problem with them, and those (like me!) who don't and won't wear any such thing ever, unless forced.

However, I don't really understand what all the fuss is about either way. Although I find it a bit tacky, I don't see how anyone can get enormously upset over a T-shirt with a big, red "A" on it. After all, the idea is no more tacky than football or company logo shirts. I shrug my shoulders at you all!

However, I should very much like to donate to the RD Foundation for Reason and Science anyway, so initially I might as well donate the equivalent of the price of one of those T-shirts. I also rather like drawing attention to my secularism in less garish style, so I'm going to work out some other ways of visually expressing it (perhaps using the pansy, which I didn't even realise was an old free-thinkers' symbol until coming across this thread). And to those who object to the design rather than the principle: why not simply design your own?

Other Comments by baal

163. Comment #59481 by Ohnhai on July 29, 2007 at 7:55 am

TO those that dislike the RichardDawkins.net URL plastered on the shirt. Print your own, that simple.

To those who think it's too bold, you are missing the point.

Perhaps we need mugs, pin-badges and necklaces too.

If we are attacked or hurt because we wear these garments then they loose. Gay bashing did nothing but harm the anti-gay movement.

Other Comments by Ohnhai

164. Comment #59485 by pzmyers on July 29, 2007 at 8:14 am

Here's a constructive suggestion.

The point of the Out campaign is to get people to stop being so shy about publicly admitting their disbelief; don't get hung up on the fact that the RDF is offering a t-shirt to encourage people to open up. If you don't like the t-shirt, don't get it -- just follow the spirit of the campaign and get out there and make your ideas known.

If you like the t-shirt the campaign is selling, wear it.

If you like some other t-shirt that promotes atheism or ridicules religion, wear that.

Design your own: I had a thread with lots of suggestions for a godless logo. Steal liberally.

If you want something with more depth than a simple slogan, go talk to people. Stand on a soapbox on a streetcorner. Attend a UU meeting. Organize your own local atheists group.

Write on a blog. Write a book. Make a youtube video. Sing a godless song.

Everyone is getting stuck on the shirt, which is just one outlet for getting the message out. Seriously, you don't have to wear it. But find some way to help the cause instead of carping pointlessly.

Damned atheists. You can be so self-defeating.

Other Comments by pzmyers

165. Comment #59486 by bouwe on July 29, 2007 at 8:17 am

I agree with Robert Maynard and Spinoza (and others), the problem is the prominence of the website address. I don't think it should be there at all. The A is enough, but might be better smaller.

I can't understand the fuss. It is just a T-shirt that SOME might want to wear, and proceeds go to a good cause, so get over it you wankers.

Having said that, I personally wouldn't be caught dead wearing it, but that is just my taste. I have always had distaste for clothing with any symbols or writing whatsoever. This sort of thing will not appeal to the majority of atheists, because, hey, we're...well, you've heard the herding cats cliche already! But for those who wish to wear it, fine. Please stop making those people feel like they are doing something "religious" by simply choosing to wear it - it is petty and ridiculous. Agree with PZ, it is a consciousness-raising exercise and we need a many-pronged approach to suit the many different types of people who are atheists -- and that includes catering for those who wish to identify themselves as atheists by wearing the T-shirt . More power to 'em!

I might go for an A-emblem on a baseball cap.

Other Comments by bouwe

166. Comment #59490 by Yorker on July 29, 2007 at 8:44 am

155. Comment #59454 by IQHQ

Oh dear, this is getting tiresome, stop being such a baby by trying elicit the support of others to bolster your lack of confidence, be a man -- I assume you're male -- and stand up for yourself like one. In spite of your allegedly high IQ, you haven't yet learned that ad hominems are the appropriate attack when dealing with pompous pricks. I deemed it the correct response in your case, it seems I'm not alone in this opinion.

I'm getting old and my last measured IQ was only 138, so I guess in your eyes that makes me a dumb-ass. But let me tell you something smarty; had my friends chosen such a crappy nickname for me I would have told them to choose another and certainly would not have retained it myself. How smart is that? The slightest slip-up and somebody will jump on you as indeed you think I did, but anyone following the comments will see I initially made no personal attack upon you, that was something you brought upon yourself. As for Mensa I wouldn't be so proud of that outfit, a friend of mine is an ex-member, he opines that "Densa" would be a more appropriate name, I think I may agree with him. If you wanted to impress me and possibly others, tell me what you've done, what have you invented that's been helpful to humankind? You show me yours and I'll show you mine!

Anyhow I'm bored with you now but be sure that my self-assuredness will remain undaunted no matter how much you attempt to bait me with puerile attempts, a man of my experience does not worry over such trivialities. That's what you lack incidentally -- experience of life. Go away now and waste no more of your high intelligence upon me, I consider this conversation at an end.

Other Comments by Yorker

167. Comment #59491 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 8:45 am

Mr Empirical

Thank you for your support. That I have been accused of "wanker pretentiousness" is blatantly absurd, not to mention slanderous. Like everyone else on here, I express my opinion and should have the right to do so. One person (i.e. New Atheist) describing my posting history as a catalogue of "look how good I am" posts should not be taken as infallible. My personal suspicion is that the initial distate for my posting name coloured his (and others') interpretation of my posts. Like I said in response to Yorker above (see the main paragraph of post 153) - if one is to take Yorker's approach, then ANY time one expresses an opinion it could be interpreted as a proclamation of "This is the RIGHT WAY!" . . . except, of course, if we pussy-foot around in the way he seems to endorse, i.e:

"Let me premise my remarks by saying that this is ONLY my opinion, and certainly not to be taken by anyone as an objective claim. Please understand this; i do not want anyone to be offended by me simply holding a different belief"

. . or something to that effect . . how long would debates take if we resorted to such wishy-washiness! Of course when people make statements they are to be understood as subjective reflections upon objective references. This need not be re-iterated.

We are ALL in a constant state of intellectual evolution, and for those of us who have been deeply affected by a recent shift in our world-view, we use this forum not only as a place to promulgate our already decided beliefs, but also as a sounding-board for our evolving ideas. I say this in reference to some of my previous posts on previous threads, posts which "New Atheist" evidently has a problem with. That I previously felt concern about the military approach of "some" posters on this site should be accepted as "merely my personal view". That it did not correlate with his own views should not have been occasion for him to say "Screw You!" Yet this is what he said. It's all very well that you can hide behind the impermanence and anonymity of the internet to say such things, but I doubt very much that you'd say it to my face. For my part, as a contributor to this website (grateful for its existence) I will continue to address the "issues", and the issues alone, and to the best of my ability. Ad hominems are a replacement for a substance which is lacking. Whilst my "substance" may not be to your liking, at least respect my refusal to resort to your ad hominem tactics. And let's drop this futile discussion.

Other Comments by IQHQ

168. Comment #59493 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 8:46 am

debaser71


Happy Birthday ! ! ! ;)

Other Comments by IQHQ

169. Comment #59494 by Yorker on July 29, 2007 at 8:47 am

170. Comment #59485 by pzmyers

"Damned atheists. You can be so self-defeating."

How true PZ!

Other Comments by Yorker

170. Comment #59495 by denoir on July 29, 2007 at 8:47 am

I was going to say how extraordinarily silly this t-shirt idea was, but it has been expressed more eloquently than I could by others in this thread.

I would however like contribute with one thought and that is that the whole business strikes me as very context sensitive. I live in Sweden (80% atheists) and if I wore a shirt like that people - atheists and theists alike would think that I was an idiot or would take it as some form of not very funny joke. It would be like wearing a T-shirt that seriously declares that I don't believe in Santa Claus. This would go for most of Europe - it would be utterly pointless and just bad press for this site.

In a society where you have 90% theists the situation is a bit different. Being an atheist there is something noteworthy. If many 'normal' people 'come out' as atheists i such places it will help combat the entrenched idea that atheists are amoral people. On the other hand - as has been pointed out by others - it does further the "atheism is a religion" fallacy. Again, you don't see communities of people who have non-belief in Santa Claus in common.

Other Comments by denoir

171. Comment #59498 by Yorker on July 29, 2007 at 9:00 am

165. Comment #59473 by MrEmpirical

"For all we knew, IQHQ could have worked at the CIA headquarters, i.e. an "intelligence headquarters", so to jump to the conclusion that his name is self-aggrandizing or even self-referential was inappropriate (yes, we now know that his name IS self-referential, but no one knew that originally)."

Give me a break, do you think that anyone had worked at CIA HQ would have chosen such a name? What's the likelihood of that? Anyhow, it's irrelevant since I evidently guessed correctly that the name was self-referential.

Sadly, standards seem to be slipping here at RDF, I yearn for the old days when wankers were thin on the ground, I hate to say it but I'd rather read The Wee Flea or Bizzaro Dawkins than some of the dorks frequenting this site nowadays!

Other Comments by Yorker

172. Comment #59499 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 9:02 am

Yorker

I really don't want to respond, but your post was so pathetic that I can't resist. I have plenty of life experience. I do not think you are dense because of your lower IQ. I have followed the thinking of Howard Gardner et al. and agree that the IQ test is not an adequate measurement of one's intelligence. I do not think of myself in such a high regard as you impute to me, nor have I ever alluded to it (except though my name, the origins of which have been explained). I stand up like a man anytime I need to, and have not failed to do so here, which sheds light on your motives for resorting to such challenges. You say I brought it upon myself, well read back and you will discover that it was indeed you you referred to my name.





POST 148... YORKER:

"Oh no! Tak about cringeworthy! I wouldn't wear an Atheist t-shirt anymore than I would wear a t-shirt saying that I was a Social Democrat! For goodness sake...."

As you can see I've repeated your words from #72.

Yes, you're right, you did express your own opinion, in such a way that indicates at least to me, that your way is THE way. That's what prompted my comment to you that others might wear it. So don't WTF me, WTF you! You might make me say your nickname gives a good insight into how you seem to feel about yourself! I think you slipped up here, don't dig a deeper hole.





Now, see what I mean? Where's the "wanker pretentiousness" here? I expressed a view, big deal.

Other Comments by IQHQ

173. Comment #59500 by pzmyers on July 29, 2007 at 9:03 am

Sweden sounds like a very nice place, except for the incredible parochialism of some of its inhabitants. Sweden is in planet Earth, correct? Have you looked at the Middle East or Africa recently? How about North America, where the military is well stocked with fundamentalist fanatics with scary weapons?

When the whole world is like Sweden, then we can relax on this one issue, and I'll agree with you. For now, though, the context is humanity, which doesn't quite share your sensible opinions. In fact, we have whole communities that share a belief in the Santa Claus equivalent, and they are willing to kill for that belief.

Other Comments by pzmyers

174. Comment #59502 by automath on July 29, 2007 at 9:14 am

170. Comment #59485 by pzmyers

"Damned atheists. You can be so self-defeating."

Oh you gotta have faith... erm...

Other Comments by automath

175. Comment #59504 by ignored_ethos2 on July 29, 2007 at 9:18 am

I like this campaign but these shirts are just not my style. I'd like it to be a more subtle message. It can still be effective without being so large. Just look at the "W" sticker campaign, that was, unfortunately popular.

I'd design something with whatever is the closest universally acceptable "official" symbol for atheism but I'd make it small and tasteful. On the back of the shirt I'd have the Richard Dawkins.net Logo

-Mark

Other Comments by ignored_ethos2

176. Comment #59505 by Graham on July 29, 2007 at 9:19 am

Just bought my T-shirt. Still only order 144. Come on, snap them up.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment though, the only slight reservation I have is the old issue of being defined as A-something rather than Pro something.

Other Comments by Graham

177. Comment #59506 by Yorker on July 29, 2007 at 9:20 am

119. Comment #59399 by Beachbum

Just noticed your post, a good one. I was caught up in an afternoon's entertainment here and didn't notice until now, you sound like a well balanced person, my kind of man.

Hungry -- must eat, but no grasshoppers or grubs a nice piece of steak I think, very tasty, I feel sorry for vegetarians!

Other Comments by Yorker

178. Comment #59507 by steve99 on July 29, 2007 at 9:26 am

I am afraid that atheists are on the verge of becoming petulant whiners.

Excellent. Better than being silent, and about time too. We have a lot to whine about.

Other Comments by steve99

179. Comment #59508 by Yorker on July 29, 2007 at 9:30 am

Dinner is cooking, but the thought has just occurred to me that seeing a blank T-shirt seems to be rare these days. Ah well, enough atheistic interplay today, it's back to beautiful reality for me.

Other Comments by Yorker

180. Comment #59509 by Henri Bergson on July 29, 2007 at 9:38 am

Yorker & IQHQ,

Nobody cares less about your respective IQs - give the playground squabble a break.

Denoir,

Jag förstår dig, jag är ochså halv-Svensk! I do understand that America needs a movement against theocracy; however, I still maintain that turning atheism into a sect by creating a logo and 'Out Campaign' is a bad method which will prove self-defeating.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

181. Comment #59511 by _J_ on July 29, 2007 at 9:47 am

Wow! What an astonishing kerfuffle!

170, pzmyers and 171, bouwe - hear, hear. Surely those injections of common sense are all that need to be said on this subject.

...oh, except one thing: if you're buying one, buy a black one. Makes it much harder for a mischievous theist with a red marker pen to write 'SSHOLE' on you.

EDIT - Oops, least original joke ever, there. Should have guessed, given all the words already spilt on this monumentally important subject.

Other Comments by _J_

182. Comment #59514 by steve99 on July 29, 2007 at 9:56 am

I still maintain that turning atheism into a sect by creating a logo and 'Out Campaign'

I have to admit you are right. I am gay. I have worn rainbow symbols and been involved in campaigns. That has made me part of the great global Gay Sect. We all think alike and worship St Elton of John.

(No, of course we don't. Your worries are clearly unfounded)

Other Comments by steve99

183. Comment #59515 by philos on July 29, 2007 at 10:01 am

Would I spend my money to wear a t-shirt that generally stated the planet Yip-yip didn't exist, that millions of others believe in (and not withstanding all the other people out there that believe in other, separate planets that guide their lives, that also have a high probability of not existing)?

If there wasn't such a hostile A and a self-serving direction to this website, and
funds going towards a non-for-profit organization in the Promotion of General Science & Reason, YES.


*** Otherwise, as the shirt exists & if it were free, I'd wear it mowing the lawn or something. ***


Why invite argument and a punch in the nose arguing with the deluded? Will the RDF pay
my medical bills or will Michael Moore take care
of that, too?


*** YORKER - I just bought 5 blank white t-shirts the other day. Simplistic.

Other Comments by philos

184. Comment #59516 by Henri Bergson on July 29, 2007 at 10:09 am

Steve99,

Don't play the 'gay card'. I think identifying atheists with homosexuals would be of great offence to most homosexuals. Not you, as you are both. Many homosexuals are Catholics as they can do anything they like so long as they confess!

Atheism is not some kind of physiological condition, as is homosexuality (though note Foucault's concerns). You can choose to be religious, you cannot choose to be heterosexual.

As a white heterosexual with total opportunity, saying that I am an oppressed minority (as an atheist) is an insult to truly oppressed groups.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

185. Comment #59519 by steve99 on July 29, 2007 at 10:22 am

As a white heterosexual with total opportunity, saying that I am an oppressed minority (as an atheist) is an insult to truly oppressed groups.

Talk about missing my point!

Of course I am not saying that atheists (or those with any other intellectual stance) are oppressed like gay people were and still are. (Although I would claim that the excessive control of Churches in the UK where I live is definitely some degree of oppression).

What I was saying was that such publicity campaigns can be very successful by helping to remove worry about (sexuality/a different point of view/whatever) through visibility. I was also making the point that sharing a logo and a campaign in no way implies atheists are a 'cult' or unified group. I was simply comparing 'marketing campaigns'.

On the other hand, I belief religious belief does tend to decline with intelligence, so perhaps one could mischievously call atheism a symptom of 'an inherited tendency to wards rejection of delusion'....

Nothing is ever simple.

Other Comments by steve99

186. Comment #59520 by Corylus on July 29, 2007 at 10:47 am

IQHQ wrote:

That I have been accused of "wanker pretentiousness" is blatantly absurd, not to mention slanderous.

Since it was me that originally accused IQHQ of writing 'pretentious wank', and I am thus accused of slander, I feel constrained to put the record straight. My irritation was in response to his following comment:

See the following thread for context:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1321,His-word-Attacking-religion-can-seem-like-breaking-a-butterfly-on-a-wheel,David-Baddiel

For a species which shares circa 97% of our DNA with chimps, there will always be those who veer towards the chimp side of the intelligence variant, and whose inferior intellect dispose them towards the fake securities and easy answers provided by religions. Since this is so, I bid Professor Dawkins (or, indeed, any of you) to explain the roots of his argument's vehemence. There is no doubt that you are CORRECT. Everyone on this site can see that this is so, but that is surely because we are collectively quite an intelligent bunch. Not everyone will be able or prepared to accept the consequences of your arguments.. do you just respond "so what"? shouldn't we be compassionate to those who NEED religion in a similar way that we are compassionate to less intelligent animals? (Apologies faith-heads!) Surely shouldn't the satisfaction gained from seeing the world through our refined and developed perspective be enough without us needing to have others see sense too?

Another related point refers to your dismissal of religion's "carrot and stick" approach to coercing people into behaving in conformity with a certain moral code. You say, "isn't that a pretty abyssmal reason to be moral? I accept this point and also agree that morality has an evolutionary origin. Yet, my point centres not on how you and I (relatively intelligent men) respond morally to shedding our religion, but rather upon how less educated men and women may. We live in an age where we are surrounded by an anti-intellectualism of philistine proportions. Can you not see how nihilism may be a natural reaction to such people losing faith? Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good.

I considered calling him a sexist, condesending, patronising prat also, but gave him the benefit of the doubt of using the term 'men' to refer to all people. I wouldn't want to be accused of slander after all.

I'm pretty easy going, I rarely get into scraps on here, but I really do not like this assumption that atheism is not a position one takes on the absence of dieties, but a select social club for 'relatively intelligent men' who can use this position as a vantage point from which to look down upon the hoi polloi.

The reality of course is that if people are given access to the educational and social advantages that people IQHQ and myself have obviously enjoyed then they are more likely to be atheists. Intelligence is merely one of a whole variety of possible factors. To assume otherwise is elitist and patronising. Plus, it's pretentious wank.
-----
N.B. Re the IQ debate. I once received a similiar score to IQHQ's on a Mensa test - I just don't feel the need to refer to it in my name.

Other Comments by Corylus

187. Comment #59521 by Bonzai on July 29, 2007 at 10:48 am

161. Comment #59463 by Zeus

I'm atheist & proud that I am independent of thought enough to come to this position.

I also would never wear this t-shirt. It is in my opinion - pointless, tacky and embarressing. The same as wearing a religious cross, a t-shirt with a big nike tick logo on the front...etc.

If I want to express my views or beliefs I use my words not some awful t-shirt

Well spoken words from the One True God. I can't agree more. When we engage religious people we emphasize that atheism is not a religion, why then are some atheists so eager to adopt the trappings of born again Christians? Is it a religion envy that some on this site invoke Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens like the trinity?

Yesterday I saw a couple wearing t-shirts which loudly screamed "pro-life 2007" in the front and "Jesus loves you" on the back. How tacky can you get? Even more sensible religious types don't do that. If you must wear a button with the word "God" in a red circle and a slash across. IMO anything more than that is excessive.

Other Comments by Bonzai

188. Comment #59522 by Henri Bergson on July 29, 2007 at 10:50 am

Steve99,

But that's what you've alluded to throughout your posts. Secondly, the 'Out Campaign' is blatantly identifying atheism with homosexuality.

No-one calls homosexuality a religion; theists do call atheism a religion (RAA), so (I say) do not encourage them by creating an atheist symbolism.

Homosexuality and atheism should not be considered equatable minorities.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

189. Comment #59525 by Bonzai on July 29, 2007 at 10:57 am

Richard Feynman, probably the greatest scientist in the second half of the 20th century, had only average IQ.

On the other hand, I watched a documentary about high IQ individuals and it appears that many anti-social types who go in and out of prison and can't hold down a steady job or a steady relationship meet Mensa standard. In the documentary we were introduced to this individual reportedly having one of the highest IQ on record. He was a bitter, dysfunctional individual who was chronically on social assistance. He had no life and no friend.

IQ scores are vastly overrated.

Other Comments by Bonzai

190. Comment #59527 by korpios on July 29, 2007 at 11:06 am

If I may chime in regarding the shirts: the logo's great, but the URL should be changed to outcampaign.org. Assuming that individuals unfamiliar with the campaign see the shirt and the URL, it's important to get them to a website that's centered around the campaign rather than one in which the campaign might be lost among myriad other topics.

Other Comments by korpios

191. Comment #59533 by steve99 on July 29, 2007 at 11:54 am

But that's what you've alluded to throughout your posts.

No, I haven't. All I have done is illustrate that many criticisms of the 'Out Campaign' are clearly invalid, as things have not worked out as suggested in campaigns run in similar ways.

Secondly, the 'Out Campaign' is blatantly identifying atheism with homosexuality.

Even if they are, I have nothing to do with them, or them with me.

Personally, I also think calling it 'Out Campaign' is misguided because it has such an implicit link with 'outing' and homosexual equality campaigns.

But that is nothing to do with the issue of symbols and campaigning in general.

Other Comments by steve99

192. Comment #59534 by Quetzalcoatl on July 29, 2007 at 11:55 am

Bah, very late to the party.

Just wanted to take this opportunity to say that I actually find the level of debate and, well, bickering on this particular thread to be quite a good thing. It's a free and frank exchange of views; how many religious forums would you find that on? Not too many.

As for the T-shirts (and forgive me for stating what many have already said) I think it's entirely a matter of personal preference. Self-evidently people live in many different environments. If you think that wearing the T-shirt is pointless where you live, or will bring you too much hostility, just don't wear it! But if you think you live somewhere where it could provoke discussion, put a human face on the Satanic force that is Atheism, then go ahead.

Do what you like, wear what you like, but do SOMETHING. Don't be silent. Even if the contribution you make is nothing more than wearing the Red Letter T-shirt, at least you're making a contribution. That's my opinion, anyway.

NB- I scored highly in an IQ test. They only test for certain things though, certain ways of thinking and abilities. They are by no means the be all and end all of assessing intelligence.

Happy birthday, debaser71.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

193. Comment #59536 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Corylus

For the record, I was not the one who drew attention to my name. As Mr Empirical said above, it's just an internet handle. Don't read too much into it. I also referred briefly above to the reasons why I inherited this name. I don't take any particular pride in it. Indeed, if you had read my post above, you would realise that I too discount the significance of a Mensa-test. It is certainly not the be-all and end-all, and I did NOT choose the name through any pre-meditated attention-seeking exercise, but rather arbitrarily and for want of a better one. If you really want to "give me the benefit of the doubt", then accept what I have just said, and give me a break.

In relation to the quoted passage, I stand by everything that I said, but several points need to be borne in mind:

1) As I said above, we use this forum not just to display our already decided points of view, but also as a sounding-board for the intellectual evolution of our views. None of us are a finished product, and a hint of charity in your interpretation of people's ideas would go a long way to easing this evolution's progress. I have by now refined several of the ideas mentioned in the quoted passage, and would happily concede that, on a second reading, it does indeed seem that I was overly apocalyptic in my predictions. Let that be so... but let it be in the past.

2) Reading the passage again, I notice that it wasn't articulated in a very clear way. It is trite comment that sarcasm does not transfer to the blogosphere, and I may be guilty for not having made such sarcasm more clear, perhaps with the help of emoticons... e.g. "our refined and developed perspective" . . .

3) As regards to other parts of the quoted passage, I still hold those beliefs, e.g. the "carrot and stick" approach of religion. I am not acting like "The Grand Inquisitor", as Bonzai said on a different thread, I am just seriously convinced that certain aspects of the argument have been settled too quickly, without sufficient speculation as to the societal fallout of a hypothetically godless society. Yet, in this and all other areas of debate, I will stand corrected when I AM corrected. This is the nature of discourse, and the reason why we all like this forum so much. I am addressing the issues, and am open to challenge. I still don't see how the post was "pretentious wank". I completely accept that education cures ALMOST all of the aforementioned concerns. Socrates: "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance". Yet my initial points still remain. At least, in the course of elucidating and refining those points, I don't resort to the sorts of ad hominem attacks that so many others feel comfortable resorting to . . .

Now enough of this boring talk.... let's get back to more constructive debates . . . Henri Bergson, even though your comment was at my expense, I totally agree with you!


[Incidentally, to the person above who referred to the anti-social nature of many high IQ persons, I must briefly empathise with their plight. Is it any wonder that those of such intense mind develop personality disorders in the modern world? Our democratic societies are geared towards to average, and those who fall to the extremes get left disenfranchised. At least with those at the bottom end, socially-concerned governments will feel it their duty to do something to help. They wrongly assume that those who have higer intelligent quotients can "look after themselves", showing a serious lack of understanding of the issues involved]

Other Comments by IQHQ

194. Comment #59537 by Yorker on July 29, 2007 at 12:29 pm

186. Comment #59509 by Henri Bergson

Henri, you've already had something of an ass-kicking from many on this thread, are you looking for another? You behave as if you live your life in isolation and appear to have an exaggerated sense of your own value.

Other Comments by Yorker

195. Comment #59538 by Bremas on July 29, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Sigh...
Why is it that science types rarely have a sense of style?
Big A goes on back of shirt. Maybe small A above left breast on front.

I would never wear the shirt out of fear of being beaten up for being a dork.

Other Comments by Bremas

196. Comment #59540 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 12:42 pm

That seems to be a common charge on your part Yorker. Is it just a coincidence that people with a "exaggerated sense of [their] own value" seems to constantly crop up around you? Or does the fault lie with your own perception? A case of externalization, perhaps? ;)

Other Comments by IQHQ

197. Comment #59541 by Lapsed Humanist on July 29, 2007 at 12:46 pm

I haven't read all the previous messages, so apologies is this point have been made before. However;

However cool those t-shirts look, Dawkin's ad-people have done a great disservice to their intended cause and to dispel the often leveled criticism about the cult of Dawkins; That is, if the t-shirts are sold in great numbers.

I'm sure we are many that can only wait until t-shirts without the cheap advertisement included (so 'distastely' prominently) are produced.

Other Comments by Lapsed Humanist

198. Comment #59544 by MouthAlmighty on July 29, 2007 at 1:13 pm

"Damned atheists. You can be so self-defeating."

Couldn't agree more PZ – a bit like setting up a campaign to paint atheists as a downtrodden minority whose civil and human rights are routinely abused; passing them off as victims of rampant institutionalised social injustice; telling them what they should think about themselves; accusing them of heresy if they're not quite comfortable with the prescribed image; encouraging them to rally round a unified symbol and proselytise the masses and denouncing them as trolling agents for the 'enemy' if they don't get with the programme.

And while we're at it can I get an "Amen!" people?

Personally – I couldn't give a monkey's chuff about the t-shirt. It's a perfectly legitimate way for a non-profit organisation to raise funds and awareness. In that sense, it is indeed "just a t-shirt" and you can take it or leave it. For the record; if you decide to take it, then all power to you! If you want to buy it because you're contributing to a worthy cause, that's just fine. If it makes you feel good to announce your non-belief to the world and be part of a wider and growing community, that's great. If you want it to help you actively engage people in conversation about atheism, then that's just dandy! But don't imply that not wearing the t-shirt means that I'm 'in the closet' that I'm a victim unwilling to take a stand against my own oppression, or worse, that by implication my inaction endorses the oppression and hinders the efforts of other more heroic individuals.

"…share your idealism… COME OUT of the closet! You'll feel liberated… your example will encourage others to COME OUT… Let the world know that we are not about to go away… help others understand that atheists come in all shapes, sizes, colours and personalities…" etc., etc.

This isn't a sales pitch for a t-shirt; it's a recruitment campaign for soldiers in a sacred cause complete with instructions for the required votive behaviour. Some of you have expressed outrage at the 'sheep mentality' references made here, well like I said, all power to you. But it doesn't matter which way you slice it, this is shepherding!

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

199. Comment #59545 by EEguy on July 29, 2007 at 1:15 pm

WOW!
Everybody's here! I'm suprised to see this all-star lineup on such a minor quibble, but I enjoy it anyway. Glad to see PZ here. Yorker: Welcome back; I missed your comments.
My two cents: I won't wear one because I almost never wear slogans (the ol' alma mater being the exception). Everyone should do whatever you think is best. Variety is good. Do what you thinks best furthers the cause.

Other Comments by EEguy

200. Comment #59547 by Yorker on July 29, 2007 at 1:36 pm

205. Comment #59545 by EEguy

Hello EEguy,

Glad I was able to give you some fun, hope you enjoyed yourself today :)

Other Comments by Yorker