Does Atheism have a Generally accepted Symbol (and do we need one?)

[FatAndFaithless]

But it's also a reason why politically, our voice remains unheard, even though we are a non-trivial portion of the population.

But there is no political voice other than not wanting religion mixed into political affairs. Otherwise there are as many political views as there are atheists. I wouldn't even piss on Ayn Rand if she was on fire, but others might, while still others may even try to resuscitate her.

And as such, I don't feel a need to form a 'team' logo to identify myself with them, I feel absolutely no need to.

If people want to form a club or forum or group and call it an atheist group and make icons and hats and bumper stickers, all the power to them. But trying to have one "real" universal symbol would just rub a lot of atheists (pretty much every one I know personally and especially the ones with whom I disagree with politically) the wrong way.

[Minimalist]

[TreeSapNest]

What happened to "Brights?"

Edit: Seems they're still around: http://www.the-brights.net/

[FatAndFaithless]

That idea is still around, but it's pretty stagnant because (as I said) a huge portion of atheists don't really want to have a label or club to belong to, because it's literally just one viewpoint on one question.

I don't have any problem with people calling themselves "brights" (beyond the pretentiousness, at least), but the moment they try to call me a "Bright" or suggest it should be a term we should all use...that's where I have a problem.

[Marsellus Wallace]

I like the holes in his hands

[SteelCurtain]

But there is no political voice other than not wanting religion mixed into political affairs. Otherwise there are as many political views as there are atheists. I wouldn't even piss on Ayn Rand if she was on fire, but others might, while still others may even try to resuscitate her.

That's a pretty idealized version of reality. I'm not saying that all atheists hold politically identical views, no group does. But I think it's safe to say that just like protestant Christians have a political force even though there is a panoply of political views among that subset; Atheists could have a political force if united.

[FatAndFaithless]

But what political force? A bunch of people getting together and saying "we don't believe in God"? Not only are there vast differences in political ideas among atheists, there is not a single political idea that directly comes from atheism. Hell, I have numerous atheist friends that honestly could not care less about religion in government and just 'go with the flow', and ones that really do think "marriage" should be defined as a man and a woman since it's a 'religious' idea.

I don't think there's any reason to try to organize a political party around a single, neutral, non-proscriptive stance. It's like forming a political party based on the non-belief of Leprechauns.

[TreeSapNest]

I don't have any problem with people calling themselves "brights" (beyond the pretentiousness, at least),

That was my thought, and I think most everyone's, the first time I heard it. I'm gonna answer the question, "Are you Catholic," with, "No. No Mam. I'm a Bright." LMAO! They have the focus that atheism alone lacks. But the name is just a really naive choice.

[Cato]

wE ArE a fUcKiNg TeAm . Its not like he's asking to make an official all-in-one book of atheism that must to be followed . its just a fucking symbol . its cool .

This guy just popped into my head:

[SteelCurtain]

But what political force? A bunch of people getting together and saying "we don't believe in God"? Not only are there vast differences in political ideas among atheists, there is not a single political idea that directly comes from atheism. Hell, I have numerous atheist friends that honestly could not care less about religion in government and just 'go with the flow', and ones that really do think "marriage" should be defined as a man and a woman since it's a 'religious' idea.

I don't think there's any reason to try to organize a political party around a single, neutral, non-proscriptive stance. It's like forming a political party based on the non-belief of Leprechauns.

Except for the fact that a fundamental belief in Leprechauns isn't encroaching upon people's rights and trying to stick it's nose into every facet of government.

It is naive to think that there isn't a significant majority of atheists that votes a particular way. One quick poll of this site would tell you that.

I am not suggesting that there be an 'atheist party.' That would be silly. I am suggesting that if a symbol that became the sigil of atheism normalized atheism more, made it easier for people to recognize that the people that they knew pretty well were atheists all along, and allowed closeted atheists to realize that there are more of us out there than they thought, then maybe that may lead to a wider recognition of atheists as as a portion of the voting population that shouldn't be ignored---giving rise to more secularism.