I went over to the [Poll #1142739]I'm not planning to put whichever design I end up making into either of my t-shirt stores, but if someone is interested in any of these designs in any particular shirt style, let me know and I'll make it for you.
I think urls on shirts are kind of weird. I like the big scarlet A, but most people won't know what it means, so putting some variant of "atheist" underneath it in text might help. I prefer "out atheist" or "proud atheist" to "I'm an atheist," for some reason.
Yeah, I feel kinda awkward about urls on shirts - I only put my website url on my stagehand shirts when I'm trying to promote the site but I don't sell the shirts with the url on them. I'm offering up the url as an option because that's how the original design is.
You're right that the big A won't mean anything to anyone who doesn't already know what it is, but again, it's one of Dawkins' original options, so I included it. I like the simplicity of the design without words, but I have a feeling that people who comment on my necklace (thereby giving me an opening to discuss polyamory) probably won't ask me what the big A means, so some kind of text would be helpful, I think.
I prefer "atheist" by itself under the big A. "Out," "proud" and "I am" are all to cheesy for me, too, "See, see, and I don't care what you think about it, so there!" Whereas "atheist" is more, "Yep." Still in-your-face, but dignified.
That is really wonderful. I suggest A alone on the front, because it is much more striking that way, with the entire quote on the back...b/c that quote is so grreat.
I'm not completely comfortable with the label 'Atheist' though I do not believe there is a god or other higher power in any mystical, non-physical sense. But, to me, being an atheist comes with all kinds of baggage involving scientific orthodoxy (beyond the scientific method, there should be no orthodoxy in science) and a rejection of spirituality (I think the spirit exists in the same sense that NRE does. Just because you can describe it as a result of a bunch of chemicals wandering around doesn't mean that the subjective experience isn't meaningful and worth appreciating for itself.) that I'm not comfortable owning.
OTOH, I do think the world would be a much better place if there were fewer theists and more atheists, and I'm very much against persecution of atheists. It would be nice to have a way of stating that passively in public.
Ah, yes, well, I do reject all "spirituality", so I'm not uncomfortable with the label "Atheist" at all :-) I think that many theists and other "spiritualists" see an orthodoxy in science when it doesn't exist (not that it never exists, just that it is often misidentified).
As an INTJ, I am often called stubborn and close minded by people who don't realize that I have already considered all the options and rejected them based upon the results of my consideration. All they see is the end result and assume that I won't even consider any other option. They do not see that I *did* consider the other options and made my choices based on the available data and I am willing to reconsider my choice when given alternate, acceptable data.
When I decided to move to Florida, my mother insisted that I was completely close-minded to any other option, including just staying at home. But I wasn't close-minded, I had already considered all the possible options and only gave my mom the result of all my consideration. She didn't see the months of research I put into all the possible options to come up with the conclusion I ultimately decided on. Her objections and alternative possibilities had already been considered by me, and so I was able to give her the reasons why I decided against them as soon as she could bring them up. This, to her, makes me stubborn and close-minded and inflexible.
I think this is what a lot of people are doing when they see "orthodoxy" or "dogma" in many scientists (and I use this term to apply to science-based thinking people, not just those in the profession). As femetal said in a recent post I archived, a skeptic is someone who is equally as skeptical of the currently accepted paradigm as the new one - it's just that the current one comes with a set of evidence and the new one has yet to prove itself. Once it does, however, the less-correct one is rejected in favor of the more-correct one, regardless of whether it's the old or the new idea.
So when it comes to things like "spirituality", we have to deal with different ways of problem-solving, but even before that we have to deal with the symantics of the situation. In my case, "spirituality" involves anything supernatural or outside of the natural world. In your example, if there is something that we can label "spirit" but can ultimately break it down to chemical interactions, then by *my* definition, this is not spirituality because it's not outside the natural world. What I reject is claims that require the currently accepted laws of nature to be broken or bent without offering up proof of existence. This is what "spirituality" falls under, to me. But to many spiritualists, the "spirit" is above and beyond the natural world. It exists outside of the self and cannot be explained by chemical interactions or electrical impulses or coded data. It's *this* that I reject.
But to many spiritualists, the "spirit" is above and beyond the natural world. It exists outside of the self and cannot be explained by chemical interactions or electrical impulses or coded data. It's *this* that I reject.
And I do as well. That word is rather overloaded. In my opinion, people's spiritual experiences are often hijacked by religion.
But, I can see that you understand sort of where I'm coming from. I demand that things prove themselves, but I'm much more willing than many to entertain ideas that might seem bizarre or completely contrary to the best 'theories' (used in the strictly scientific sense) we currently have for modeling the universe as observed. But if those ideas turn out to be contradicted by evidence or provide no predictive power I do eventually reject them.
Of course, I'm an INTP not an INTJ, so that fits. :-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2/22/08 09:20 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2/22/08 09:26 pm (UTC)From:You're right that the big A won't mean anything to anyone who doesn't already know what it is, but again, it's one of Dawkins' original options, so I included it. I like the simplicity of the design without words, but I have a feeling that people who comment on my necklace (thereby giving me an opening to discuss polyamory) probably won't ask me what the big A means, so some kind of text would be helpful, I think.
no subject
Date: 2/22/08 09:41 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2/23/08 03:22 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2/23/08 02:54 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2/23/08 04:02 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2/23/08 08:44 pm (UTC)From:I'm not completely comfortable with the label 'Atheist' though I do not believe there is a god or other higher power in any mystical, non-physical sense. But, to me, being an atheist comes with all kinds of baggage involving scientific orthodoxy (beyond the scientific method, there should be no orthodoxy in science) and a rejection of spirituality (I think the spirit exists in the same sense that NRE does. Just because you can describe it as a result of a bunch of chemicals wandering around doesn't mean that the subjective experience isn't meaningful and worth appreciating for itself.) that I'm not comfortable owning.
OTOH, I do think the world would be a much better place if there were fewer theists and more atheists, and I'm very much against persecution of atheists. It would be nice to have a way of stating that passively in public.
no subject
Date: 2/23/08 09:16 pm (UTC)From:As an INTJ, I am often called stubborn and close minded by people who don't realize that I have already considered all the options and rejected them based upon the results of my consideration. All they see is the end result and assume that I won't even consider any other option. They do not see that I *did* consider the other options and made my choices based on the available data and I am willing to reconsider my choice when given alternate, acceptable data.
When I decided to move to Florida, my mother insisted that I was completely close-minded to any other option, including just staying at home. But I wasn't close-minded, I had already considered all the possible options and only gave my mom the result of all my consideration. She didn't see the months of research I put into all the possible options to come up with the conclusion I ultimately decided on. Her objections and alternative possibilities had already been considered by me, and so I was able to give her the reasons why I decided against them as soon as she could bring them up. This, to her, makes me stubborn and close-minded and inflexible.
I think this is what a lot of people are doing when they see "orthodoxy" or "dogma" in many scientists (and I use this term to apply to science-based thinking people, not just those in the profession). As
So when it comes to things like "spirituality", we have to deal with different ways of problem-solving, but even before that we have to deal with the symantics of the situation. In my case, "spirituality" involves anything supernatural or outside of the natural world. In your example, if there is something that we can label "spirit" but can ultimately break it down to chemical interactions, then by *my* definition, this is not spirituality because it's not outside the natural world. What I reject is claims that require the currently accepted laws of nature to be broken or bent without offering up proof of existence. This is what "spirituality" falls under, to me. But to many spiritualists, the "spirit" is above and beyond the natural world. It exists outside of the self and cannot be explained by chemical interactions or electrical impulses or coded data. It's *this* that I reject.
no subject
Date: 2/23/08 09:31 pm (UTC)From:And I do as well. That word is rather overloaded. In my opinion, people's spiritual experiences are often hijacked by religion.
But, I can see that you understand sort of where I'm coming from. I demand that things prove themselves, but I'm much more willing than many to entertain ideas that might seem bizarre or completely contrary to the best 'theories' (used in the strictly scientific sense) we currently have for modeling the universe as observed. But if those ideas turn out to be contradicted by evidence or provide no predictive power I do eventually reject them.
Of course, I'm an INTP not an INTJ, so that fits. :-)