Any Symbol Must
Be Given Its Meaning
From: "Randy Cassingham"
To: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: lapel pins, one-handed
Date: January 26, 2002 9:58 AM
I agree that "anti" symbols don't represent atheism (but rather anti-Christianity).
And I agree that you can't "conceptualize atheism" with a single shape that people will understand when they first see it.
But then, that's always the problem. Icons must be given meaning.
What is a cross but two sticks -- until they are given meaning?
What is the ichthys fish but just a fish -- until it is endowed with meaning?
I am not an artist (as you'll see), but here's my top-of-the-head concept: it denotes open thought (by proclamation, of course!). It would have to be reworked a tad, but you get the idea.
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.