What imagery calls to mind freedom from religion?

how about a picture with the moon landing on the one side, and 9/11 on the other?

The Flying Spaghetti monster?
I don’t know that’s tough… I kind of like @ragingloli idea of the juxtaposition of the two images.

maybe something that represents science? as in a replacement for religion.
like some picture symbolizing the big bang or the solar system or something

or something representing community in an non-religious way, people holding hands in a circle kinda thing…

symbols of peace, nature, or education might also be suitable.

Imagery of roads or bridges leading off into the horizon. It’s about the journey.

This is kind of a tough one. What is the tone that your client wants to have to his site? Is he just going to be preaching to the choir, so to speak, or is he really interested in changing people’s hearts and minds? Because anything logo that is hostile or alienating is going to turn people off; it’s going to be counter-productive, I think, that’s why something more neutral like what @BarnacleBill or @adr suggestion of “something representing community in an non-religious way, people holding hands in a circle kinda thing…symbols of peace, nature..” Anything that suggests that religious people are all anti-science, uneducated, incapable of rational thought, etc. will most likely get the very people he might want to reach, the very people he wants to at least stay on his website long enough to view the content, to move on very quickly.

It’s a tough one.

secular humanism?

What about just images of nature?

Picture the scene on the hill with Christ on the cross about to die for the sins of the world, typically shown as sad sorry mourners at the foot of the cross, weeping beside the jeering Roman guard.

Well, replace the mourners with happy folk at a garden party having fun, enjoying life, being courteous, sharing a glass of cheerful kodak moments together… but completely oblivious and ignoring the battered bloody savior on the hill just behind them. Sounds like a great photo op!

Try searching on anti-religion in Google Images. Quite a few different choices came up. I like the one that says “Thank you for not littering your mind.” I’m religious and that isn’t offensive to me. But then I may not offend as easily as some others do, so don’t know how helpful my input may be.

The caption for my scene above could quote from 1 Corinthians 13:11…
“When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.”

The Atheism Atom, the fish with feet, the red Dawkins A, and this A-like symbol are classics.

@ragingloli That’s a great image idea. Not sure I want to hit that hard on the home page, but somewhere inside that would be a great lead to a page, perhaps the about us, where the site can explain in text why it is advocating for rationality.

@flo Definitely not any particular religion’s symbolism.

@everephebe Remind me, what does the flying spaghetti monster look like? It’s been so long since he’s paid a visit to Earth.

@adr Good thought. I did find a video of a sunrise over the edge of the moon shot from space. It’s pretty spectacular and uplifting. I like the thought of people from all walks of life joining hands too. I’ll have to see if I can find good stock images for that.

@BarnacleBill Nice thought. Thanks.

@lillycoyote Thanks. I have actually asked the client about that issue of the target audience. I’m waiting to hear.

@marinelife Even paring it down to simply humanism, I get a few pen and ink sketches and old woodcuts of famous humanists from history on the stock agency. Nothing useful. But it’s worth further searching.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies That might be more in-your-face than the client wishes to be. But thanks for the suggestion. If he’s up for the outrage it would spark, then so be it. As to homework, Web design is my office job. This is office work.

@eden2eve Great suggestion. I see some terrific posters there. “Adults with Imagniary Friends are stupid.” was one. Another read, “Dear God, save me from your followers.” Some inspiration in some of the images as well. Why didn’t I think of that? Ah well, I wouldn’t need my Fluther friends if I could think of everything myself. :-)

@laureth The fish with feet will probably end up on the site, but I need something much more visually compelling for the look of the home page.

Thanks to all who contributed, or who have additional ideas. You’ve broken my mental logjam.

just teasing about the homework… you know I know your profession.

I’d be careful with the Darwin fish. It may be too obvious, and turn Theists away before the message ever sinks in. Your target audience, I suppose, is two fold. First being the person who is thinking about joining a religion, and secondly the Theist who has learned enough to question authority.

That’s why at first glance, the scene of the crucifixion might look familiar and inviting. Upon closer inspection, instead of sorrow, we find people playing scrabble. Use their own icons against them, and for your cause to draw people in. Rebrand the death on the cross AS the death of religion altogether.

I’ll leave this alone now. Thanks for asking this question.

Eeeewwww just one more and I’ll stop, I promise… ;)

Dark room with a spotlight casting a shadow of the crucifixion on the floor. A janitor is mopping up the shadow, clearing the floor.

That’s all… promise… probably… maybe…

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Agreed on the footie-fish. I was thinking that would be an inner image soupled with symbols that target the other main religions as well. I am still waiting to hear a definitive target audience from the client. Have asked, and not gotten an answer yet. From what he’s told me so far, I think his primary focus is to provide those already convinced that organized religin can be a dangerous thing to pool resources in providing viable alternatives. Great eye for graphics. But I don’t have budget for a photo shoot. Whatever I go with will have to come from stock agencies plus my own skill with Photoshop.

BTW, for any who aren’t offended by irreligions humor, I did the GOogle image search that @eden2eve suggested. I clicked through to a image called “The X Amendments” and found this absolutely hillarous video.

Thatd’vid is awesome!

Glenn Beck just showed up on my credit card statement for $30. I didn’t order any freakin’ thing from Glenn Beck! I’ve called the phone number provided a couple of times and it is indeed their show. But the person always says “I’ll have someone get back to you on this immediately” and of course I never hear from them. Anybody else getting scammed from the Glenn Beck show? Scratch that… different question.

@ETpro haha that vid is great

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies how’d they even get your card info?

i have no freaking clue. it’s a brand new card.

scary…

This commercial from 1971 comes to mind. It’s the Coke commercial “I’d like to buy the world a Coke”. All these people are standing on a hillside holding hands, singing.

There’s also this popular meme to build on.

@ETpro I understand. Darwin’s picture sounds good, to answer your direct question.

Let me explain my first response (I was in a rush I didn’t fully read the question) I have a bit of a problem with the concept of “freedom from religion” because it is counterproductive. There are religious people who you would never know are relgious. There is no need to exclude them. As long religions don’t interfere with public life…city officials praying in city hall for example, ridiculous! . The reason Niquab and what I mentioned Burqu’a is because I don’t know another thing that’s comparable to it. It prevents people walking down the street from knowing who the person under the Burq’a is. It could be the criminal on the Most Wanted, or the person who has a *restraining order from me and on and on.
Burqu’a,Niquab and anything similar from any religion. No problem Hijab,etc. I wish the various parties would tackle the practical problems instead of eliminating religion altogether.

The latest version of the game Civilization has ten “social policies” which break down into five opposites: one can adopt ‘Piety’ or ‘Rationalism’. The screen where the player chooses from among these policies represents ‘Piety’ with a colorfully-garbed bearded priest and ‘Rationalism’ with a wigged 17–18th century natural philosopher holding a prism up to light.

Gulags come to mind.

That’s right @Nullo… the classic 1984 Apple commercial is iconic for this project.

k i’ll shup now

The first thing that came to my mind is a shepherd (with a crook) standing over here, alone and looking lonesome, and all the sheep over there, running free, maybe even cavorting. Definitely outside the fence.

Unfortunately sheep aren’t famous for their independence of thought. Also the shepherd calls to mind one particular religion and not religion in general.

Well, then, how about birds? wild horses? cats? wildcats? Creatures of some sort that live free and happy without being herded or domesticated or confined.

love the thought of cavorting animals @Jeruba. just love that word actually.

I’m picturing a man lifting up a blindfold.

I love the idea of a really great moon shot or some type of quasar or nebula in space. Or just the earth itself.

Or how about a bank (a bunch of different squares) of human eyes. Use eyes and eye colors from every continent on earth. The example that I have shown is merely to illustrate what I mean, this picture isn’t very good.

Or a big shiny human eye with a reflection of the sun or the moon or some other space-thing or science related thing reflected in the pupil.

Or a really cute mixed race baby looking at a blank slate (chalkboard) that would “represent” all of us.

Or a microscope view of a molecule or atom or some other super-small object (especially one that had some type of really beautiful colors) This is a nickel atom and this super-simple but beautiful shape of an atom or this photo of atoms from this website

Or a photograph of a snowflake. Everyone knows that no 2 are alike. The people that believe in God, think he was making some very beautiful artwork, but those of us who do not believe, see snowflakes as wonderful unique examples of nature at work. Like this photo

Or rings on a tree

Or rings of water

I thought of a man lighting a fire, using flints.
A man straddling a rocket.
An open book with a child reaching for it

TL;DR

THe first image that popped into my head was a picture of a human brain.

Cool man, I’m also in marketing/design/coding. I don’t like the idea of marketing the notion of a world without religion. Mainly because I consider the term “religion” applicable to the ways of atheists and non-atheists alike. If he’s been planning his campaign around that concept my first advice would be to revise that approach for a new website on such topics.

However, let’s say they are one of those clients who dig their heels in and want to go forward with what is likely an inferior product.. sigh.. well, you can still sell a bad product with good marketing. haha. Soooooo, imagery based on these notions that don’t strike me as being cheesy.. hmmm.. one approach:

Maybe get primal. Before there was any argument about god or science. Stick with life and the living rather than atoms and stars and abstractions of what really matters to people. If you’re going to use celestial phenomenon, try the sort that are are visible from the naked eye. For any kind of technological imagery I would opt for the sort that show innovative ways of solving social issues, displaying the raw desire for things to go well and the value of human innovation. Show balance in nature, a thing we want to emulate in forming conclusions. Systems that seem to work in complex ways; contrast with human ingenuity. The idea of starting over comes to mind. Starting fresh.

Borrowing from @jerv, a himan brain with wings.

@chyna That’s a great image. I found a copy of Teach the World to Sing without any references to soft drinks. I love the graphics for it. The imagery really works. Thanks so much for this suggestion.

@SavoirFaire Very powerful images. I will have to see what of that I can license, or perhaps generate my own version.

@flo Thanks for your concerns. I understand. I’m not yet entirely clear on the client’s intentions for his organization, but I can share that concern with him. Deists and religious leaders with tolerance for differing faiths might want very much to be a part of an organization with the right spirit to it.

@hiphiphopflipflapflop Fascinating imagery. Thanks.

@Nullo With all due respect to your Christian right feelings, the problem with Fascism, and the various forms of communism that have been practiced around the world is not their embrace or rejection of religion, it is their embrace of authoritariansim. All were conceived to place absolute power in the hands of a tiny handful of eite oligarchs, and let them live like Medieval Kings and Barons. And there are moves afoot among several great religions today to establish exactly that sort of authoritarian state in the name of God.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies If I can come anywhere remotely close to imagery that powerful, I will count myself a great Web developer. This one is a terrific set of images. I’ve seen the comercial voiced in English. Very impressive.

@Jeruba That’s a great image. I may be able to work it into something more generic. I should have mentioned in the details that this site is going to target Africa and the Middle East as well as Western states, so its appeal must be to the generic idea, and not a single religion.

@thorninmud That’s good. I really like that.

@Kardamom Super ideas. I love that Chem 1010 Website.

@lynfromnm This is fantastic. So many creative thoughts.

@jerv That’s interesting. Thanks.

@ninjacolin Excellent input. I don’t know how flexible the client is. I’ll have to get him on Skype (he’s in Africa) and talk the mission statement through.

@lynfromnm Very interesting idea.

Wow—what a creative group. Thanks to everyone.

What comes to my mind is the Spanish Inquisition and Torquemada. Lots of red and black.

@Sunny2 That’s definitely the side of organized religion this site seeks to defuse.

LOL. How about the Monty Python Inquisition Cardinals inside the Ghostbusters red crossed-through-circle.

@ETpro,
That’s definitely the side of organized religion this site seeks to defuse.

I’ve read that statement at least ten times now, and I’m still failing to understand it. Can you say it another way?

@Jeruba Let me try.

Christianity has a reputation (deserved or not) of dealing with heretics (including Wiccans, Muslims, Protestants, Democrats, and any altar boy who tells mommy what the preacher did to him) very harshly. Now, the Spanish Inquisition was particularly brutal and also very instrumental in many people nowadays viewing Christians as narrow-minded blood-thirsty sadists who will do anything to anyone in order to retain.gain power and wealth.
The truth is that most Christians are not the sort of bigots that will kill someone for having differing religious views, sexualities, or merely having wealth that the clergy wants to get ahold of, but that stigma remains in the minds of some.

On the Muslim side, how many terrorists have strapped explosives to themselves and shouted, “Allahu Akbar!” before self-detonating because their Imam told them it was a good idea?

Both are instances of organized religion not merely condoning but actively supporting persecution, violence, and even genocide. Now, do we really want to expose that side of organized religion, or do we just want to focus on their peaceful and/or charitable works?

I think it safe to assume that @ETpro wants to signify an alternative rather than an actual opposition. There is a difference between “Freedom from religion” and “Religion is evil”, so I can see why a less adversarial image would be preferable to a “You Suck!” image.

Jeff Hawkins on overcoming big competitors. (Beyond Belief conference 2007)

@ETpro, is that what you meant—what @jerv said? I have been puzzling over what possible meaning of “defuse” could fit this statement within the larger context of advocating a life without religion. Defusing images of the Inquisition sounds almost like an intent to defend, so to me it seemed contradictory.

I do see a difference between freedom from religion and condemnation of religion as evil, but the suggested images that have appealed to you seem to be more about rejection of than freedom from. A person could enjoy freedom from religion without ever having had any, which was why I thought of untamed animals.

@Jeruba I think that illustrates how this question can invite answers that reveal the respondent’s feelings towards religion. When I thought of the image of the human brain, I was thinking in part about how Galileo promoted a view of the way the Universe worked that relied on personal observation rather than religious teachings.
The fact that the Church found him guilty of heresy as a result of promoting heliocentricity may lead some on both sides to focus on the fact that science and religion have an occasionally adversarial relationship, but I was thinking merely about the fact that a man freed his mind from religious thinking and viewed the universe through secular eyes.

Sadly, religion has historically seen freedom from religion as evil and therefore has made those who free themselves from religion a bit defensive. Not so much nowadays as we are generally more tolerant than a few centuries ago, and science is often seen as the biggest enemy of religion, making the relationship between the two continue to be more adversarial than it needs to be. (Scopes Monkey Trial, anyone?)

I like the idea of wild animals, but I think it may be a bit subtle. Animals are free from religion, but they are also free from other human traits like modesty. When was the last time you walked down the street naked and then decided to randomly stop and lick yourself? I am not sure if wild animals would convey the image that is needed here, at least not to the average person who may not think about it too deeply.

The British Humanist Association logo is good. It reminds me of the drawings in the Good News Bible I has as a child.

I would have an image on one side of people cowering in darkness in front of some idol and on the other side someone approaching with a light source. I have not decided on the best symbol for the light – a lantern or maybe a flashlight.

@LostInParadise
a miniature sun

Yes, it’s indeed a very tough one. I find some suggestions above quite offensive, such as science, big bang, peace, nature, or education. Why would any of this represent atheism or freedom from religion opposed to religion? The big bang as a symbol is especially absurd because the concept was first suggested by a Catholic priest called Georges Lemaître.

I would stick with imagery of a self-referential or self-explanatory multiverse (the ultimate natural law explaining the ultimate natural law) and infinite recursion. There’s plenty of stuff to manipulate with Photoshop. Take a look at these:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=multiverse&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=941&bih=568

http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&biw=941&bih=568&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=infinite+recursion&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=

Matt, The Universe is neither self-explanatory nor recursively self-referential. It just is. Religion anthropomorphizes our ignorance into a force controlled by a vengeful deity. It is precisely this thinking that freedom from religion liberates us from.

here we go!

@LostInParadise I can see how some would argue that the universe explains itself but humanity just doesn’t speak the language.

Henry the 8th comes to mind, even though his reasonings were immoral and really wasnt freedom from religion, he was the first I can think of that risked freedom from the Pope with all the reprisals associated with doing so.

@jerv, The Universe does not explain anything. It can’t speak. It just plain is. Granted, it forms interesting patterns. So do actuarial statistics, but people do not die in order to create statistical patterns. They are emergent properties.

To the OP. I’d be leary of establishing any form of iconic representation for the ideals expressed altogether. It’s the irony of religion that idols should not be formed, specifically to discourage humanity’s propensity to eventually mistake the representative idol for the actual ideal being expressed. This is consistent through most popular world religions, where the idol, over time, becomes the subject of worship, and the ideal it represents is too soon forgotten, or manipulated to serve a private agenda.

All religion is idolatry. The statues of the polytheists have been replaced by holy books. I chose to use an idol for its symbolism and to avoid direct confrontation with monotheists. We could replace the idol with a large book entitled, “The Word of God.”

I thought of a few other images that might work:

An old tree

Sand Dunes (this particular one looks like the letter S, which is neither here nor there, but very interesting)

Mountains Reflected in Water (choose an image that is not specifically recognizeable as being in any particular country, photo shop several together or use a graphic illustration)

An Hourglass

Rock Strata like this one or this

Bacteria Under a Microscope (one of the lowest life forms, that lives and thrives without religion, but is still a very beautiful image)

The Constitution…space… The Moon Landing

The Embryo

I don’t have a picture, just an idea for a picture. It is of a cross, but the cross is sprouting branches and leaves like a living tree and the figure on the cross has been set free and is shown stepping down into the world.

@ETpro thank you.

@hiphiphopflipflapflop Now that’s a funny image. :-)

@Jeruba Yes, @jerv summed up my thoughts very well. It was early morning when I posted that brief comment in reply to @Sunny2 ‘s suggestino. I should have taken more time to explain myself.

@jerv We still have our Westboro church types out preaching hate and demonization of all who don’t follow their American Taliban ways. It does make it hard to pick the best perspective. I want to take a tack that isn’t off-putting to the religious person who has come to doubt and is open to a better way.

@meiosis Yes, it does call to mind a person throwing their hands up in the air in celebration. It has a happy feel.

@LostInParadise & @ragingloli I very much like that idea.

@mattbrowne I definitely want to avoid the confrontational approach. Those are some great multiverse images, but I am not selling the multiverse theory. Fractal art is the ultimate infinite recursion made all the more interesting because each step down from the macro toward the micro and quantum level is very similar, but subtly different. But as @LostInParadise points out, how do I connect infinite recursion with freedom from religion?

@thecaretaker I see where you are going but there’s two problems with that. Henry VIII founded a new religion and not all that many people around the world would recognize his image these days and know who he was and what he did.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I think I need some graphic look for a web site. I need a logo. I’ll just try to avoid imagery that lends itself to deification. No statues of Baal.

@LostInParadise When people riot and murder because a single book was burned half way around the world, there can be no question that they’ve made an idol of something made with human hands.

@Kardamom Nice images. That could make a great slide show to the right music.

@talljasperman Thanks. Great suggestions.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I like that.

@flutherother That’s a great image for something, but this site needs to reach people of all the great faiths as well as those who are already atheists of agnostics.

@flo You are welcome.

Great link @hiphiphopflipflapflop. Thank you.

@hiphiphopflipflapflop Yes, @RealEyesRealizeRealLies is right, I meant to thank you for that link.

Thanks!

As for the image, I’m still stuck on some scene centered around a “natural philosopher” looking character (one can basically draw elements from portraits of Spinoza, Newton, Leibniz, Benjamin Franklin, etc.) doing some kind of very simple experiment like in that Civilization screenshot.

I think I know why this came to mind. Here’s a striking book cover featuring Newton I came across several years ago.

There’s also this quite attractive period painting by Joseph Wright though it’s a bit busy, and this Jacques-Louis David painting of Lavoisier “The Father of Modern Chemistry” (writing at a table bearing some of his apparatus) and his wife.

(Hmmm, is there a nice painting/woodcut out there of Ben Franklin flying his kite in a thunderstorm?)

@ETpro – Anything that doesn’t uniquely represent atheism is a confrontational approach. Unfair hijacking. A tree doesn’t represent atheism or absence of religion. An embryo doesn’t represent atheism. Science doesn’t represent atheism. The big bang doesn’t represent atheism. Bacteria don’t represent atheism.

If you choose any of these it will offend religious people who believe in enlightenment and science and critical thinking. You’re pissing of your clients allies.

If your client is advocating for people to live without witch hunts and exorcism and hocus-pocus and creationism and biblical literalism then go ahead.

Sounds to me like you need a non-specific design with strong colors like black and red. It could be a logo or a distinct symbol that won’t offend anyone.

@mattbrowne To be fair, the same could be said about a cross, a pine tree, a fish, a triquetra, or the Greek letters alpha and omega. Symbolism is always like this.

How about this: 2 pictures next to each other. One has a market place with a stake where a woman is burned alive, screaming in agony, surrounded by village people cheering and throwing stones. The place is muddy, rocky and full of litter.
The other one is the same marketplace, but without the stake, without the crowd, just people going about their business. The place is nicely paved, green plants and flowers, and clean.

I like @ragingloli‘s idea of the marketplace, but I don’t think you have to contrast it with the one where the bad stuff is going on. Just use the second image. To me that just says: People going about their business.

Or how about something like a map of the world. It just shows that we’re here all together, nothing more.

How about the words “Freedom from Religion”

..

OOops. I answered the wrong question. Too many tabs open.

@ETpro As I stated it wasnt freedom from religion his reasonings were selfish ones and what you mean is you dont recognize what he did or who he was, he is one of Englands most popular historical monarchs

@ETpro If you are able to, let us know what you decide to go with.

@SavoirFaire – Some more complex symbols or a combination can be pretty unique. How about this one for New Atheism

http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/a3d.jpg

Jesus on the cross is also pretty unique. Or people of the book like

http://www.emmauslakeway.com/pictures/peopleofthebook_symbols.png

In general atheism is rather poor when it comes to symbols or rituals and it’s probably a good idea to change this. The longing for rituals is part of the human genome.

Some photo designers seem to try creating more appealing graphics and symbols, e.g.

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/240196/240196,1260600656,1/stock-photo-digital-illustration-of-atheist-symbol-in-colour-background-42868456.jpg

A Google image search for “symbols atheism” might give you more ideas.

@mattbrowne My point is that none of these things necessarily symbolize atheism, just as the cross doesn’t necessarily symbolize Christianity. They come to do so only by convention; and if they are “unique,” it is because they have driven other possible usages off the field. I can easily imagine someone disputing the various stylized A’s that some atheists use, and I have seen non-Christians use Jesus on the cross. Symbolism is never immune to challenge.

As for atheism being poor in the way of rituals or symbols, why shouldn’t it be? Atheism is not some monolithic movement, and I am really quite against how a handful of atheists are trying to make it into some unified ideology. If I need rituals in my life, I can have them without any need for them to be rituals of atheism. Buddhists, Jains, and Taoists have no trouble being atheists with rituals, after all, even though said rituals are not rituals of atheism.

Atheism is just another ontological view one might hold. I don’t need a symbol or rituals for my views on mereology, temporal parts, modality, or the problem of universals. Why should I need a symbol or rituals for this?

What imagery calls to mind freedom from religion?... Is easy to answer just what imagery comes to your mind when you think on it… don’t worry what others think…. Mine now is the Puritans landing in America searching for freedom.… or a modern twist with Space Colonists.

@SavoirFaire – What do all atheists uniquely share despite their not being a monolithic movement? The belief that deities do not exist. For this we need to come up with a powerful symbol otherwise @ETpro can’t do his job. Or chose symbols that work for religions just as well and confuse (or anger) visitors of the websites he’s building.

Red and black stylized flames and a white stylized flying dove?

@mattbrowne I don’t have ‘a belief that deities don’t exist’. Rather, I don’t have ‘a belief that that deities exist’. There’s a big difference between these two positions.

@mattbrowne I agree that all atheists believe that deities do not exist. But you’ll notice that @ETpro has not asked for a symbol of atheism, but for imagery evoking freedom from religion. There are atheistic religions, however; so even if there were a symbol that represented all atheists, it might not do the job.

Furthermore, I am suggesting that all symbols are potentially confusing or angering. This is simply a cost of doing business in the world of symbolism. All symbols will be objectionable to someone or able to be appropriate by others for different reasons.

==

@meiosis I have to defend @mattbrowne on this one and say that you are not an atheist, but rather a non-theist. Those are indeed very different, but atheists do share a belief that deities do not exist.

I realize there is a huge terminological battle about this, but the above is what makes sense to me. Non-theists lack a belief in God, atheists believe that God does not exist, agnostics actively suspend judgment on the matter, apatheists don’t think the question matters, and ignostics claim not to understand the question. Atheists are a subset of non-theists on this taxonomy, but the terms remain distinct.

The distinction is not between believers and non-believers. It is between the religious and the non-religious. You can believe in God and not be religious. If the extent of a person’s belief is, “Yeah I suppose there is a God,” that person is not religious. There are no consequences to his/her belief. We do not freedom from such people. If, on the other hand, a person avoids contraceptives based on religious interpretation then this person is influenced by religion.

@mattbrowne If atheism is correct, which is what the site will be assuming, then any and all imagery (like nature imagery) belongs to the concept appropriately. Religious websites will use those images to signify the miracle of ID. And rightfully, an atheistic site ought to reclaim those.

In defending their positions both sides have to defend their views and represent the world under their trains of thought. It’s the way it has to be. Atheism is being presented as reality itself and hence anything real (like the complexities of nature) would make for a relevant metaphor.

Freedom from religion is not the same as atheism or even agnosticism or indifference. Belief in God is not in and of itself a religion. What we need liberation from is all the unjustified beliefs that result from adopting some entire religious doctrine, and especially the assumption that those who do not follow the doctrine are one’s enemies.

@SavoirFaire You’re wrong. Look up athiest in a dictionary. You’ll find the definition is “someone who disbelieves in the existence of gods”, which is, as I stated, very different from someone who believes that there are no gods

@ETpro One day the label @ETpro will be a symbol of freedom… We don’t have enough symbols just yet… they need to be created by leaders like you… maybe your Avatar or Face… like Abe Lincon’s or the Statue of Liberty

@mattbrowne wrote If you choose any of these it will offend religious people who believe in enlightenment and science and critical thinking. You’re pissing of your clients allies. That is it.

I wonder if watching the movie “I am” is helpful. I just heard about it, I haven’t seen it yet.
(Added) http://www.iamthedoc.com/

If Astronaut John Glen for example, feels peaceful, content, and is decent (if that is the case)as a result of his belief in God, why would I want to take that away from him? I wouldn’t.

“Freedom from religion” is a specific concept, yes. You can show that with malice using “down with religion” imagery such as vandalized crosses, mosques or other religious iconography. Alternatively you can bypass the war and get straight to the idealized results of a world that no longer subscribes.

@meiosis Dictionaries are poor sources for mediating disputes. For one thing, different dictionaries tend to contradict one another. Mine, for instance, defines atheism as follows: “the theory or belief that God does not exist.” Moreover, the definition you quote is ambiguous. To disbelieve is not necessarily the same thing as to lack belief. It could also be believing contrarily. In fact, I find that to be the more natural reading of the definition you gave.

And again, I noted that there are terminological disputes in this area. By my taxonomy, which I think is more reasonable than the alternatives for various reasons, you do not qualify as an atheist if you merely lack belief in a deity. Babies lack belief in any deity, but I think it would be stretching it to call them atheists. The questions simply hasn’t ever occurred to them, nor do we have any reason to think it should have.

I see your points. @ETpro‘s question is about “living without religion” and this isn’t identical with “living with atheism”. When we take Wikipedia’s definition of religion this would translate into the following:

“Living without powerful and predefined long-lasting meaning and living without symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values and living without narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the ultimate law of the universe.

Living without organized behaviors and without clerical hierarchies and without regular meetings or services for the purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places and/or scriptures.”

Well, I get the feeling that this approach makes @ETpro‘s job even more difficult. How to symbolize the absence of symbols? How to symbolize the absence of religious traditions? Living without religion can still mean there are other traditions. And humanism also gives meaning to our lives.

Here’s a symbol for living without religion

http://static.tumblr.com/vq05pup/Yvjlj5koj/600px-no_religion.svg.png

but I don’t think it’s a good idea using it.

Sorry to have been so long responding. I’ve been swamped with work.

@hiphiphopflipflapflop That’s a great image. I am not sure how many people know it, but Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man. He was also into Cabala and occult interpretations, looking for the magic hidden in Bible Code and so forth. Had the church known his beliefs, he would likely have been charged with heresy. It is unfortunate. He pushed his theory of mass attraction to the point of developing calculus to predict motions of celestial objects. But when he began to grapple with the effect of not just the sun on a given planer, but other planets, each in their own odd orbits tugging on all other planets and the sun itself, and how moons added to that complexity, he went into tilt mode. He said only God could order all that. It remained for future generations to actually do the math to show that except for the slight variance that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Newton’s calculus was entirely up to the task of calculating the orbits with all their interdependencies. He took science so very far, but in the end, when he hit a wall he couldn’t understand, he posited that God must control that because it was incomprehensible to him.

@mattbrown I understand what you are saying. There aren’t a lot of images that “represent” atheism. I’m thinking that a pleasing appeal to science sort of look is right for this. I definitely want to avoid imagery that most religious people would find offensive.

@Sunny2 Agreed. I’m not so sure about red and black. Sound rather satanic—and that’s just an appeal to one human invention of a magical being in lieu of another. But the thoughts on the logo are spot on.

@ragingloli It’s powerful and for some sites it would be a dynamite look. But my client wants this site to be less confrontational. \

@Kardamom You see what I mean. Thanks.

@thecaretaker Please don’t be deliberately obtuse. I know who Henry III was and know what he looked like . The concern I expressed was about people in Africa, India, Asia and yes, America recognizing him—and that those who did would not associate him with Freedom from Religion, just freedom to kill off wives and marry others. That is not the image my client is seeking.

@chyna I will definitely do that. It will be a while, but when it’s online, I’ll let you all know the URL.

@SavoirFaire That’s an excellent point on symbolism. My thinking is to avoid it other than creating a symbol for the logo and hoping this organization can drive that symbol into the meme. I think a look and feel is more what I am after.

@talljasperman what-imagery-calls-to-mind-freedom-from-religion/#quip1982089 Weren’t the Puritans looking for the freedom from other religions so they could set up their own version of an American Taliban. Hardly freedom from religion, just freedom to cram your own religion down everyone else’s throat.

@mattbrowne I think that a symbol of some recognizable sort is essential for the logo. The rest of the site’s graphics, look and feel; I am pretty well zeroed in on..

@Sunny2 That’s pretty interesting. May be workable for a logo.

@ETpro Then royal blue and black. You need a strong primary color and you need the black for evil, whatever the source. Purple and black?

How about the outline of a human brain (with nothing inside) showing that the human mind is open to just about anything, including religion or the lack of religion.

Or some type of an empty vessel (or both of these things next to each other) showing that there is potential for them to be filled by… (by what? that’s everybody’s guess).

@thecaretaker I think everybody knows the role of Henry the 8th in history, and that is precisely why the OP can’t use that image. He did not, in any way, promote the lack of religion. He just used the clerics to create a new religion (or set of rules within religion) that would satisfy his own needs. Henry is all about religion (he is synonymous with the creation of the Protestant Church of England) and that’s why the OP can’t use that image. I don’t think the OP was trying to insult you, I think, he like many of the others, thought that you were joking, or trying to use humorous irony.

Sorry I couldn’t answer all the respondents yesterday. Fluther hung up on me. Was it something I said? Maybe an act of God. Who knows.Anyway, picking up where we left off:

@meiosis Very true. And the emphasis for this site is on the later.

@SavoirFaire That’s an excellent point. What I hope to symbolize is individual rationality—an escape from the oppressive facets of organized religion which is often organized more to consolidate money and power for its leaders than to do the work of a particular religious creed’s underlying philosophy.

@LostInParadise Exactly.

@ninjacolin Very true. I think the site would even be open to deists and those who believe there is a creator but not one interested in organized religions to worship him.But the point on symbolism is spot on.

@LostInParadise Thanks. I want to keep that important distinction in mind in design.

@meiosis Looking it up in the OED, I find:
1—To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2—Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
3—To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
4—To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.
So you are right in the most accurate understanding of the word.

@talljasperman Thank you. I don’t know if I will ever achieve that goal, but the suggestion I might is the nicest think anyone has said to me in some time.

@flo haven’t seen I Am either. Will have to check it out.

@flo As pointed out above, freedom from religion is not the same as freedom from belief in a benevolent creator. For those who need such belief to face the challenges of life, I have no desire to take it away from them.

@ninjacolin My interest, and that of my client, is the latter.

@SavoirFaire Whenever multiple dictionaries give differing opinions, I fall back on the Oxford English Dictionary/ I quoted its definition above.

@mattbrowne Excellent link to Wikipedia. Thank you so much.

@Sunny2 Given the colors in the sunburst video, that seems to be exactly where it’s heading/ Thanks for your thoughts on why that computes in relation to the site’s message.

@Sunny2 Thanks for your input on this.

@ETpro Understood. My last post was really addressing the general reader definitely not you. I was mindful of the fact that it was your client.

Why does it matter who wants it anyway, right? (re. my above post)

I see ‘Freedom from religion in public institutions’ i.e Freedom from the government influencing people.
I see people wanting freedom from people knocking on their doors to preach to them.
but individuals are already free to be free from religion.

@flo Yes, I see what you mean. The actual orgainzation name is Leave Religion though. It has a bit more of a advocacy role to it than just opposing state sponsored religion.

@ETpro I googled LeaveReligion.org, but I don’t find it.

@flo The web site is still in construction. It won’t be visible under its DNS for a while yet. It’s only accessible through the back end now. And it’s going to be a .com instead of a .org.

@ETpro Okay thanks. I still don’t know the purpose of making everyone Atheist.

@flo I’d be putting words in the client’s mouth if I guessed his intentions. I am waiting for the written content, so at this point your guess is as good as mine. All he has shared with me so far is revealed in the name of the organization, his statement that he wants to reach out to religious people as well as to atheists and agnostics, and in the details with the OP.

@ETpro I just came in from my list of “Q you’re following” to add something and found your post from 3 days ago. It wasn’t under my “new activity”

To be continued.

@ET pro, There is no reaching out in saying ” Let me rid of a major part of who you are, never mind that you are a wonderful (a ton times better than some Atheists) human being. There is no reaching out there. I see it as the opposite of reaching out. ”My belief is superior. Come to my superior way…” for what?

@flo I don’t want to get into a debate about whose beliefs are superior. That’s not the point of this question. If the whole idea of creating such a site deeply offends you, then you aren’t the person I’d turn to for advice on what look and feel to give it. But there can certainly be no question that religions have been at the forefront of saying :”My belief is superior. Come to my superior way” for millennia. They have routinely tortured people and put them to death over even minor variances in beliefs. War after war has been fought because some leader said, ”My belief is superior. Come to my superior way.”

@ETpro Sorry the my last post less than. It was antagonizing.

@ETpro http://www.fluther.com/119888/what-do-you-think-of-the-attempt-of-eliminating-religion-altogether/

I’m quoting one of the many great answers.

As per @augustlan and other responders – I too am in favor of it eventually disappearing. But the method—well let’s just say that we should make it indirectly irrelevant by working together on common issues: environment, poverty, inequality for starters.

@flo I appreciate ”@augustlan”:‘s intention in pouring water on a flame war. But working for “common issues: environment, poverty, inequality” is not what I see the religious right in America doing. They are working vigorously against each of those causes.

@flo asked: ”My belief is superior. Come to my superior way…” for what?

To offer an answer to your question directly, @flo, I would have to suggest that the reason someone would want to put that offer on the table (ie. “Come to my way instead of the way you currently follow”) is because there is evidence that makes it seem like the newly proposed way is somehow superior. In my opinion anyway. I’ll elaborate:

First of all, I see no shame in this. It’s the reason we put kids through school at all, to get them to learn things they haven’t considered before, to get them to learn things others have learned that are helpful not only for the individual students but also for society at large.

This is why I said earlier that I don’t think “religion” can ever actually be truly left behind because religion always seems to equate to: “The best conceivable system of living given an individual’s world view.” Regardless of whichever religion you’re a part of, hindu, christian, buddhist, what have you,.. your “religion” always ends up being definable by that definition.

The very act of “leaving religion” could itself be seen as just such a systematic behavior with the intent of fulfilling the best conceivable way of living given a person’s world view. In this case, the world view that the classically followed religions lead to bigger problems than they are worth.

I’m very curious to see how this new site intends to explain this seemingly (to me) inescapable definition of religion. I don’t see how they could do it without redefining the term “religion” to mean specifically religions X, Y, and/or Z. In the end, whatever system one comes up with as an assumed-best way to live, whether it excludes mysticism or not, would seem to be definable as a new religion in itself.

For the record, the post @flo quoted above wasn’t made by me. It was by phoebusg, in response to my answer, which was:

“Is there really such an attempt being made? I’ve never heard of it.”

“Honestly, I’d like humanity to be free of religion and superstition someday. I don’t think any organized attempt to force it will ever work, though. If it happens, it’ll be because it’s a natural progression in the course of human civilization.”

@ninjacolin , You are implicitly assuming that by not choosing religion, a choice must be made of some alternative all inclusive methodology for making decisions. This does not necessarily follow. Decisions can be made on an ad hoc basis. Removing shackles does not require a replacement for them.

@ETpro I suppose you’ll want to take note of the metaphors being used in our more long-winded replies. For example, this “removing shackles” imagery @LostInParadise suggested above.

@LostInParadise said: You are implicitly assuming that by not choosing [one of the classic] religion[s], a choice must be made of some alternative all inclusive methodology for making decisions. This does not necessarily follow.

I disagree, it does seem to follow necessarily. Ad hoc decision making, as an example, would likely become an integral practice of just such an all inclusive methodology for achieving that ‘best conceivable system of living.’

Removing shackles binds you to the freedom from those shackles. You can’t remove shackles and also keep them on. You must be rid of them. As a rule.. As a religious duty.

There’s a lot of people out there who think religious people are somehow not making rational, ad hoc decisions. This is false. They are making the same kind of rational and ad hoc decisions you would make if only you believed the same propositions were true that they do. That is, as long as you had the same worldview about what is and isn’t true in the universe. For example, if you believed there was a God who brings a good harvest when you pray to him, you would pray! It’s perfectly rational to do so as long as you are convinced that there is such a God who behaves that way. If statistically you observed a better harvest yield whenever you prayed AND made a great sacrifice to your God, the following year you would likely choose to both pray AND make a great sacrifice to your God again. The rationality is intact. The ad hocery is intact too. The claim that religious people don’t already make ad hoc decisions is utterly untrue. How else would all of the various Christian sects have formed?

”...But there can certainly be no question that religions have been at the forefront of saying :”My belief is superior. Come to my superior way” for millennia
War after war has been fought because some leader said, ”My belief is superior. Come to my superior way.” Okay, so that is exactly why we shouldn’t have one more leader to cause one more war, (let’s call it bad feelings, conflict, division) right? On one hand the perfectly decent religious people and on the other perfectly decent Atheists. If each tries to convert the other, (using imagery or otherwise) who would be dealing with the real problems?

By the way, the “religious right of America” is a small part of the whole theist population of the earth.

Some theists use religion to keep themselves out of doing bad things, and some Atheists use their Atheism to keep from doing bad things. Those are the kinds of people that are needed to work together, to fight the heinious people and help causes. Imagine if Hitler’s victims were too divided by Theisim and Athesim to defeat him.

Atheists are no better than theists as much as it seems that way to us in the Western world.

@augustlan I suppose everyone has the right to maintain for their belief system or lack thereof. I’m not sure we are going to get to a day free from superstitious belief by all atheists keeping quietly to themselves while Islam and militant Christianity do everything in their power to win converts.

@ninjacolin Good suggestion on the shackles. I’ll see what I can find in stock images on that.

@flo What I said to @augustlan above. This group’s outreach is certainly far less obtrusive than the holly rollerrs who come in teams to knock on our door, the street and subway preachers who bellow their message in our ear, and the radical Islamists who fly planes into the buildings of “infidels.”

@ETpro I totally agree. I don’t think atheists should be quiet about it. I just don’t think there’s any way to force people to give up religion. (That was about @flo‘s question. I don’t see your client’s efforts as ‘force’.)

@augustlan Had the client expressed a desire to be coercive in their efforts, I would not have undertaken to help them. They intend to present and persuade, not brow-beat of force change. When it comes to inner beliefs, I don’t even think you can force someone to change. The most you can hope for with extremes of coercion is a false confession to get the pestering to stop.

@everyone
In my first response to everyone under my OP
http://www.fluther.com/119888/what-do-you-think-of-the-attempt-of-eliminating-religion-altogether/ you will see that I was not even thinking by way of forcing. So I posted another OP
http://www.fluther.com/120074/would-you-please-edit-the-following-to-make-it-unbiased-sounding/
How would you have worded my first OP to mean forcing that is not what I was talking about?
@ETpro Definitely, it is far less obtrusive.

@ETpro…In fact it is not even obtrusive at all.

@flo Thanks. I plan to make sure the site is developed to be an outreach and not an attack.

@ETpro You are welcome. I can sense the good intention.

@ETpro Do you think the people who get the point of the imagery probably are the already converted, or not too far from converted? Also, like any art work people see/interpret it differently.

As well the likes Terry Jones, or 911 perpertrators have already been exposed the theory of Atheism.

@flo I am sure that many who join will be those already sympathetic to the organization’s goals. But they do hope to sway some who have already come to the conclusion that their beliefs are based on false premises.

@ETpro The creators of this
folks and et al would definitely join. All kinds of disguisting, hateful, criminals, would join too. It is all about the theory. Is there a creator or not? And it is against all the decent people regarless of their persuation (atheists and theists alike).

@flo That is a vile untruth. You need to get beyond the circles you move in and learn about the world out there. Here is a series of lecutres from a group that promotes freedom from religion. Listen to some, and tell me if you think these are all miscreants, trolls, criminals and druggies.
http://blip.tv/zgraphix/slavoj-zizek-why-only-an-atheist-can-be-a-true-christian-4384402
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObvjdJrDPkg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBp5N-F4mJw
http://fora.tv/2006/10/23/Richard_Dawkins
http://castroller.com/Podcasts/BigIdeas/2149515-PZ%20Myers%20on%20Science%20and%20Atheism%20Natural%20Allies

@ETpro Obviously I didn’t mean all the members would be bad people. You can’t tell me there is something that would keep them from joining, since all they have to do, is believe there is no creator.

A client could ask you for the the opposite, imagery.

@flo said: “All kinds of disguisting, hateful, criminals, would join too.”

@flo, you mean the same way all kinds of disguisting, hateful, criminals, have joined religions in the past?

@ninjacolin Yes. I knew someone would mention that Except the religions are in general about being decency, generally be good so you can go to heaven kind of thing. But a group that wants to convert peacefull theists into Atheists, not so much, right?

What do you mean by not so much? What do imagine would happen if theists converted to atheism?

@ninjacolin what did you do with the word peacefull?” …convert peacefull theists into Atheists…” There would be no need to convert them. They could end up not so wonderful after being converted.

Okay, first of all, I did mean to ask: “What do you imagine would happen if peaceful atheists converted to atheism”

and your answer is:

“There would be no need to convert them. They could end up not so wonderful after being converted”

Peace isn’t only available to atheistic beliefs. That’s clearly demonstrable in the universe. Many theists are peaceful and many atheists are peaceful. A site like the one being discussed wouldn’t want to produce/support violent forms of atheism. They would want to produce/support peaceful forms of atheism. Ideally then, peaceful theists would convert to being peaceful atheists.. if it happens at all.

Peaceful atheists have good reason for being peaceful just as peaceful theists have good reason for being peaceful. No worries there.

@flo said: “There would be no need to convert them”

Well, I think a site like that intends to make some good arguments that might help us to see why it would be a good idea for peaceful minded people to leave religion.

The burden of proof would be on them. :)

@ninjacolin there is no need for already good (change peacefull to good) people to do any converting whether it is from Thesim to Athesim to or vice-versa. The party who is doing the converting will be seen as less than.

It is not even a disinterested partry we are talking about.

.

Correction: There’s no reason that you are currently aware of.
We’ll see what the site writers have to say. Maybe they know a good reason why.

I’m still hoping for someone to edit my OP:
http://www.fluther.com/119888/what-do-you-think-of-the-attempt-of-eliminating-religion-altogether/
A lot of people have the answers that resonate with me. They weren’t thinking about banning or anything.

A person can be good in the biblical sense and participate in pollution, increase global warming, help to promote mass extinction, discriminate against homosexuals, believe that adulterers should be stoned to death, accept slavery, and prefer dictatorship to democracy. The biblical sense of goodness needs serious revision.

The sense of “good” I’m referring to is the one that is held by Atheists, Theists, Agnostics, people of different persuasion. The good that doesn’t think of banning a medicine instead of eliminating the bad side effects. The bad part of anything is not the representative of the whole.

@mattbrowne Let’s look at what the Wikipedia paragraph you attempted to negate actually said:

“Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.”

Leaving aside that it has been changed many times in the past month for being controversial and inaccurate, you seem to have missed that the first sentence only says that religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning (et cetera). Nothing about this characterization (it is not a definition) precludes the possibility of there being other systems for getting all or most of what is mentioned. The second sentence, for instance, only talks about what many religions have. Nowhere does it say that narratives, symbols, or traditions are exclusive to religion. The same holds for organized behaviors, regular meetings, and so forth. So your entire response rests on a scope error. You have not given a proper indication of what living without religion would involve.

==

@ETpro First, I would disagree that the OED is any more decisive regarding definitions. Dictionaries are starting points, not ending points. They can give us an introduction to a word, but cannot determine who is correct when there is disagreement about how a word should be used. After all, one might be arguing against standard usage on the grounds that there is a better way of understanding the issues involved. In such a case, the dictionary would be expected by all parties to contradict the one arguing for a change in usage. It would just be that someone is arguing in favor of revising the dictionary.

Second, @meiosis and I were discussing the definition of “atheist.” The definition you quoted in your post seems to be of some other word.

==

@flo Do you think there is any value to the truth or believing true things? If so, then there is a reason for a convinced atheist to try and persuade a convinced theist. Their discussions, which could be perfectly respectful, are aimed at trying to find out what is true. If both parties are interested in that goal, what’s wrong with having the discussion?

Is intimidating people who are good at exposing the flaws in their logic acceptable by this company? It is a .com by the way.

Correction: There’s no reason that you are currently aware of.
We’ll see what the site writers have to say. Maybe they know a good reason why

@SavoirFaire What I posted is, indeed, the OED version of what “atheism” means. The dictionary is online by subscrition only, but here is a publically available copy to back that up. I actually like Merriam-Webster as well, and its online version is free. But whatever dictionary you support, it must be the starting point of conversation about what a word means. If I maintain atheism means cow milk, another person claims it is hydraulic trash compactor, and yet another says it is belief in god or gods; we have no basis of discussion. If we have to define every word we use in definitions because each of them also means something unique to each of us, what do we use to do the defining? Words won’t work. It’s pretty hard to draw stick diagrams of atheism, and a great many other words in our language..

@ETpro Looking at your link, the definition you gave above was of “deny” and not of “atheism.” Moreover, the OED definition of “disbelief” supports my contention over that of @meiosis. Because if atheism is “disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god,” and if to disbelieve is “to reject the truth or reality of,” then atheism involves a rejection (and not merely a coincidental lack of belief, which could be coincidental).

This is interesting because the link is attempting to support the “weak atheism/strong atheism” terminology. Now, I’m not saying that this taxonomy is nonsensical. I understand what people mean when they use it. I’m just suggesting that it is not the most helpful and could be improved. It does not make sense to me to say that infants are atheists, for instance, since they do not have beliefs one way or the other about God. They haven’t even thought about it.

Imagine a parallel case where we declared Neanderthals to be “atheists” about the Higgs boson because they lacked a belief in it. To me, it seems that the more proper thing to say is that the question simply did not arise for them. They did not disbelieve in it because they held no beliefs about the Higgs boson whatsoever. Disbelief is an intentional act; non-belief is merely a lack.

Now, I agree that dictionary definitions are the starting points of any conversation about what a word means. Indeed, I said so myself: “dictionaries are starting points, not ending points.” But the second clause here is also important. We can rule out certain uses of the ordered set of letters “atheism” as proper English on the basis of dictionaries. Both “cow milk” and “hydraulic trash compactor” are too far away from the area in which the word applies to count as meanings of the word in English. They could be meanings of the same ordered set of letters in another language, of course, but that’s a separate issue. However, there is room for debate about how we will apply a word once we are in the general area that a dictionary definition indicates.

Thus I am not committed to saying that each word means something unique to each of us or that we need to define every word when we converse. What I am noting is that there can be disagreements about the precise parameters of words even when all parties to a discussion have a general idea about their contours. Words change their meanings all the time, sometimes even radically. All I am suggesting is that one particular way of making the word “atheist” precise is more useful than an alternative way of doing so.

@SavoirFaire ”,,,what’s wrong with having the discussion?”
There is a discussion here:
http://www.fluther.com/119888/what-do-you-think-of-the-attempt-of-eliminating-religion-altogether/
There are many answers there that have nailed it.

@SavoirFaire This is getting tedious. Here is the text from the link. Notice what word it says they are defining. I put it in bold so your eyes won’t fly down the page till you find a word down in the definition and pixate on it.

Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition

Here is how the OED defines “atheism”:

    atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

    disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

    deny

        To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
        Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
        To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
        To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

I do follow your concern about using more definite terms when in a discussion of atheism, and fully agree with your analogies about young children and Neanderthals.

@flo Except that the decision isn’t necessarily about eliminating religion. We were talking about atheists conversing with theists. There are atheistic religions, after all.

@ETpro If you look at my previous response, you’ll see that I went to your link and quoted the definition of atheism that is there. I had to in order to make my point about the link actually supporting my side of the argument. I was only pointing out that you hadn’t actually posted the definition of “atheism” above. You posted the definition of “deny.” Because if you look carefully, they are defining three words on that page: “atheism,” “disbelieve,” and “deny.” They define the latter two in order to better explain the first. If you agree with the main point about atheism vs. non-theism, however, this is all beside the point.

How did a web design question turn into this?

@Savoir Faire conversing to what end? Is the last post from @ninjacolin above an example of conversing?

@chyna how about converting Non-Atheists into Atheists, using imagery in a web design?

@Flo Stop shouting, ow, my ears. Again, he is doing a web design for a client.

@chyna I usually do that in a long text, which I think is meant for. Force of habit. sorry. Also I find people tend to use the italics for quoting people, that is why I use the “strong”.

@flo, you seem so misplaced in this discussion somehow. I can’t put my finger on it.
You seem to be challenging the idea of having such a site rather than working towards an answer to the question..

@ninjacolin you can’t change your last post. It is there no matter what, no amount of distracting…

Sorry, what about my last post? I don’t understand your charge.

@ETpro This thread has gone so far off-topic from what I thought the original question was: Help with a web design for a client, that I’m no longer following it. However, as I stated somewhere above, I would like to see the finished product and if you can somehow remember to post it in an IM, then I would appreciate it. I know you are no where near completing it and will probably forget, but I just can’t follow this any longer. It has become an atheist/non-atheist argument.

@flo, I thought maybe you didn’t understand the site concept so I was trying to help you understand it and it’s purpose when I suggested that while you and I may not know a good reason for the site to exist, perhaps the writers of the site would clue us in.

Frankly, I expected you to stop posting after I said that… but you didn’t.. and you still haven’t.. and so now I’m trying a less tactful approach:

You seem very interested in debating with the writers of the site in question. I think you will really enjoy the site when it goes live.

@ninjacolin I can’t apologize to you enough, I misunderstood!! Shame on me.
@chyna, I think maybe this is a good example that shows formatting-wise, “strong” doesn’t necesarily mean shouting at someone.
And by the way I tried to redirect people from here to another OP that more suitable to religion versus no religion.