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

[FatAndFaithless]

Like I said, you can make a symbol, but it's only going to be infused with as much importance as people give it. I don't really see the need for it, and I don't think making a new symbol and just calling it "the atheist symbol" would do much anyway, since there are already all sorts of "atheist symbols" floating around that mean different things to different atheists. There's no atheist board or council that would able to decide on the 'official' symbol, nor should there be. Let people label themselves however they want and don't try to codify it.

Just me personally, I would refuse to wear or endorse a symbol worn by certain other atheists, because I disagree with them morally and politically, and us choosing the same sticker to put on our bumper or t-shirt isn't going to change that. Making the environment safer and more amicable for closeted and uncertain atheists doesn't ride on making a new logo.

[SteelCurtain]

Making the environment safer and more amicable for closeted and uncertain atheists doesn't ride on making a new logo.

It for certain doesn't ride on it. Again, this isn't to make a masthead we all must align under. But a generally recognized symbol would generally aid in allowing others to see how many of us here really are, IMO.

[FatAndFaithless]

A symbol isn't generally recognized unless its recognized...by the general group, heh. I just don't see the majority of atheists wanting any specific symbol or logo (or one at all), not to mention the impossiblity of coming to determine if a majority of atheists would want a specific logo or symbol.

It wouldn't be a general symbol if only a portion of a group recognizes it, it would just be another "Brights" or "Atheism +" label that a portion of the group likes, other portions are indifferent towards, and other portions actively dislike. It's not practical, necessary, or useful.