The Uniform
by MikeGeneDawkins is now selling a uniform to all his followers.
You can get yours here. He could probably up some sales if he got Harris, Dennett, Pinker, and Hitchens to join him in a group photo where they all wear the atheist uniform. Then again, maybe it's only for the followers (kind of like the red shirts on Star Trek).
July 30th, 2007 at 8:39 am
There appear to be a least 3 different colors for each gender in your photo, so perhaps it's a "truniform"
Is Dawkins proposing that this mode of dress becomes compulsory?
Comment by salimfadhley — July 30, 2007 @ 8:39 am
July 30th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Hi Salim,
Did you buy yours yet?
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2007 @ 9:16 am
July 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am
No need, I still have my Alvyn and the Chipmunks fan-club t-shirt.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 30, 2007 @ 9:24 am
July 30th, 2007 at 9:27 am
LOL
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2007 @ 9:27 am
July 30th, 2007 at 10:16 am
To be honest, I couldn't see myself wearing this T-shirt. It's not very attractive. I've never seen the need for any garments or jewelry that outwardly display my political or philosophical allegiances.
I suppose an irreligious person who lives in the bible-belt might feel the need for a visual way to proclaim their difference, in the same way that a minority of religious people in the UK seem to wear clothing or jewelry as an act of overt religious observance.
I should point out that I live in London and work for a French bank. The chance of finding anybody even vaguely religious amongst my friends and colleagues is so minimal that it would render this public-display of areligiosity extremely redundant.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 30, 2007 @ 10:16 am
July 30th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Hi Mike,
I thought this was a very childish joke. 'A' for Atheist 'T'-shirts? The Scarlet Letter?
You've sunk too low, thought I.
But then I followed the link ….
Sometimes sincerity is the best satire.
ps.
Do the TTers have to be 'skins' in the basketball games now?
Comment by Pez — July 30, 2007 @ 10:18 am
July 30th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Would you be so kind as to provide a full list (or heuristics by which one could generate the list) of the suggestions that Dawkins is permitted to make for the atheist movement, statements he is permitted to issue and swag he is permitted to sell on his website which would not, in your opinion, be signs that his army of pasty yet somehow threatening nerds is about to start goose-stepping down your street? It would be helpful for, you know, future reference.
I also note that you didn't mention PZ Myers in your list of commissars ordering around their minions. Was this a simple oversight, or had you noticed that PZ had said that he'd be wearing one? Does that make him a redshirt?
Comment by grendelkhan — July 30, 2007 @ 10:36 am
July 30th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Hi grendelkhan,
You need to lighten up a bit. Look, Dawkins is the Kirk, Dennett the Spock, Hitchens the McCoy, and Harris is the Chekov. Myers? He's the Scotty (a red shirt).
Hey, don't those look like little A's??
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2007 @ 11:00 am
July 30th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Someone seems a little peeved about a blog entry labeled "humor".
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 30, 2007 @ 11:01 am
July 30th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Sorry about that MG, I didn't see your reply before I clicked Post.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 30, 2007 @ 11:02 am
July 30th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Defending an argument too weak to stand on its own as "humor" is pathetic. It's pathetic when you do it here, and it's pathetic when PZ Myers does it over at his place. Would you accept the excuse that it's labeled "humor", so you really can't get upset about it? Trying to pass off an ignorant, mean-spirited or offensive comment or action as humorous is the last refuge of the beer-brained fratboy caught at a blackface party.
Comment by grendelkhan — July 30, 2007 @ 11:22 am
July 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I see your point - If ARN or some other creationist outfit were to sell T-shirts we would never call it a "uniform" - I'd probably be more inclined to suggest they are diversifying into the fashion business in response to their failure to make an impact in life-sciences.
Are these the evidence of "Intelligent Design" that Mike Gene is always promising to show us?
http://www.cafepress.com/acces...
Comment by salimfadhley — July 30, 2007 @ 11:41 am
July 30th, 2007 at 11:54 am
I thought the "A" looked very fashionable. Though I would like to see the shirts fit a little tighter on the…oh, never mind. Just dirty old man getting carried away.
Comment by Bilbo — July 30, 2007 @ 11:54 am
July 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
I particularly admire the subtelty of this T-shirt design:
http://www.cafepress.com/acces...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the dark-ages begin shortly after the goths and the barbarians sacked Rome? I love the idea of IDers, bragging that they will replace the enlightenment with a new dark-age!
Comment by salimfadhley — July 30, 2007 @ 11:56 am
July 30th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I think the current party line is that the Dark Ages weren't really that bad, and that it's all just Enlightenment propaganda designed to blind us to how awesome everything was back when a single state-sponsored religion was an integral part of pretty much every aspect of daily life. I think I've seen something about the Enlightenment as a whole being a big mistake, too.
This is just my impression; I'm very likely wrong, and if someone wants to explain the current party line to me, I'd be much obliged.
Comment by grendelkhan — July 30, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I too have heard that the enlightenment has been way-overrated. That was the time when this "materialism" thing crept in and ruined everything.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 30, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Salim, thanks for the pointer to the Visigoth tshirt, that was great. As it is written, "by their fruit-of-the-looms you shall know them".
I also liked this one — I thought I had come up with this example of intelligent design but I see they beat me to it. Convergent evolution?
Comment by mtraven — July 30, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
The Middle Ages were a dark period compared to what- the preceeding era when the Roman Empire was able to rule the western world by fiat and sometimes through a mad or incompetent emperor? Was it an indicator of darkness to have gladiators fight for the entertainment of spectators or was the darkness an absence of Christians being fed to lions?
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Mtraven:
The toaster argument is surely one of the most convincing and coherent arguments ever put forwards by the ID community.
I'm afraid that compared to ARN, Richard Dawkins' T-Shirts are just plain boring. Why put on a simple red-"A", when you can wear any of ARN's exquisite designs and guarantee that you will be the center of attention.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 30, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
The design on the t-shirt shows a bunch of barbarians laying seige to some kind of university.
Perhaps you should suggest to ARN that they revise their design their design to feature a gladiatorial circus instead of a university?
Comment by salimfadhley — July 30, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
And what is the theme I'm to draw from that?
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I've long argued in favor in revising these practices as a spectator sport.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 30, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
You have too much spare time.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
There is this need for some to buttress their self-image with t-shirts which proclaim their beliefs or allegiances. Republican, Democrat, Rudy, Hillary, Jesus and now Atheist. It would be better to carry your identity quietly with confidence in your heart. I just hope that those who wear this new Atheist t-shirt understand that this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion-metaphysics.
Comment by bj — July 30, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
bj, you are one atheist with whom I often agree. Hope that doesn't ruin your social standing.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
No; in comparison to classical antiquity, when most of the great ideas of western culture appeared, the Dark Ages were a time of turning inwards, of preserving some of the old works, but not doing much else in the way of the advancement of knowledge. A reasonably convincing argument has been made that it was the capture of the Moorish libraries at Toledo which re-introduced this culture to the Europeans and in part set off the Renaissance.
None of this stuff rings a bell?
Comment by grendelkhan — July 30, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
Compared to the time between Aristole (320 BC) and the death of Theon of Alexandria and the murder of his daughter, Hypatia (415 AD). This was a time when science and mathematics thrived. Not only did scientists figure out the Earth was round, they had calculated its circumference. Chances are there were scientists arguing a heliocentric in opposition to the ideas of Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy), but it's likely the evidence of this was destroyed along with all the other "Pagan" writings and sun-worshipping symbols and models.
Did you know Saint Augustine's father was a Pagan? Did you also know that Saint Augustine introduced the concept of Original Sin along with the filioque clause ("and the Son")? This all happened around the 400 AD.
Something to think about.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 30, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
That swords are awesome. Also, I'm sure Asay meant to draw the gays and Muslims shaking in the corner in front of all those Christian Soldiers waving their swords, but just ran out of room.
Carrying your identity quietly with confidence in your heart is a fine thing, but as a way of raising awareness that atheists exist in this country and that they're not child-chomping ogres, it sucks. When someone not professing any allegiance isn't assumed to be Christian, then your point holds water. Until then, no. (Also, carrying your identity quietly with confidence in your heart looks mighty similar to hiding in shame and fear because you're surrounded by people who'd drop you like a hot rock if they knew you were an atheist.)
Well, duh. A "yay science" shirt would probably have something sciency on it. Like this. (It works, bitches!)
Comment by grendelkhan — July 30, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Dawkins is actually pretty clever. He's figured a way to get his fans to pay him $20 just so they can wear an ad for his web site. As for Myers, he says he's buying some, but I don't see any picture of him actually wearing the uniform.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Sounds to me like someone's uniform didn't fit.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
grendelkhan:
Such sweeping generalization! Such breadth on that paintbrush! C'mon, grendel. I don't assume ANYONE I meet is a Christian, or if Christian, any particular kind. There's just too much diversity of thought in this country to make such blanket assumptions, so I don't. Didn't teach my children to make those kind of assumptions, nor my grandchildren. Maybe you just don't get out much, or have an insulated circle of friends, acquaintances and co-workers. It's not wise to extrapolate from there to everywhere.
I live in a predominantly rural area that is famous for hosting retreats and conference centers for Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and a general facility called "ChristMont," the Billy Graham training center at the Cove, and 4 sectarian colleges. About half the people I meet are atheist or some version of Pagan, and among the Christians I dare not guess what kind. Except for the Baptists, who drive like God really is in charge of their car, and isn't paying any attention at all…
We've some Jews, quite a hefty population of Buddhists, Hindus and Taoists too. Along with a sizable Muslim population that owns most of the convenient stores and gas stations. What is so difficult in accepting people as the come, rather than putting some sort of self-protective shell around yourself that assumes everyone you meet is a Biblical literalist who hates you and wants to see you dead? That sort of thing can't be healthy. For you - I'm sure most of the people you meet couldn't care less.
I've got a really nice black one with "E=mc2" on it in white. Then there's my (rather tight, for you Bilbo) gray-on-gray with that photo of Einstein sticking his tongue out. Both have led to meeting interesting people.
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Kind of like every other activist t-shirt ever? You're reaching, here.
Do you think it's been shipped to him by teleporter or something? I have no idea if he's going to post a picture of himself in one (it's not the sort of thing he does, as far as I know), but the post mentioning the shirt was two days ago, and one of the intervening days was a Sunday. Have you had experiences with ordering and shipping things online which differ greatly from most folks'?
Shut up! My mom says I'm husky!
(And because I don't care about making you chuckle, I'm going to drive my point into the ground here: that's an attempt at a joke, not an attempt to cover a ridiculous statement by painting a mustache on it. Can you tell the difference?)
Comment by grendelkhan — July 30, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
LOL. Actually, I'm agnostic with a telic bend thinking that surely there's Somthing More. I am intrigued by EAM and most anything Joy says when I can understand it.
Point taken, but you could still carry your identity quietly in your heart-that doesn't mean your mouth stops working. We all need to respect the metaphysics of our fellows. As an atheist, you will always have to deal with your status as a threat to some religious folk. That isn't going away. If a t-shirt helps, go for it.
Comment by bj — July 30, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Joy, that's fantastic that you're such a nice person and free of preconceptions, but it's not especially relevant.
By all means. But I don't know what we need to "respect the metaphysics of our fellows"; we don't respect beliefs that aren't very popular, like Scientology or fundie Mormon beliefs. If only beliefs that are backed up by intimidation are deemed worthy of respect, perhaps they don't deserve that kind of respect after all. (It should also go without saying, but respecting people is different from respecting their beliefs.)
Oh, I think you misunderstand me. Apart from not budgeting for twenty-dollar t-shirts (and spending very little time that's not at work or at my residence), I have no interest in being confrontational in person, especially not by wearing large symbols that other people will be familiar with. I dislike the idea of labeling myself (if you've seen me around here for a while, you'll notice that I do my best not to describe my views at all), because it allows others to imagine the points of view I hold and then attack those instead of talking to me.
It's not relevant to any of the points I've been arguing, but I'm not in fact getting the shirt. I can see why other people might, and it doesn't require a desire to be part of Dawkins' Atheist Militancy. So, yes, I'm quite familiar with the idea of talking rather than acting as a walking billboard. (I should ask, however, how "quietly" one can carry their identity whilst talking about it.)
Comment by grendelkhan — July 30, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Have you ever spent much time talking to Scientologists? I have, and I can assure you they really are a fascinating religious movement.
If you think atheists have it bad, just imagine how much "persecution" CoS followers believe they receive. In some European lands their religion is virtually banned.
What I find most fascinating about the scientologists is that they have re-worked a lot of belief-systems that I would call "X-Files stuff" into a single, internally coherent belief system. Many of the things that MCromer argues for are actually articles of faith for scientologists, so not only do they believe in psi phenomena - they further assert that with adequate scientology training one can master these "mental techniques".
Of course, from a strictly materialist point of view I'd say you have to be mentaly retarded to fall for some of L. Ron. Hubbards more fantastic lies, however one is forced to admit that Scientology proves a fascinating framework for those who truly want to believe.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 30, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Bradford: The Middle Ages were a dark period compared to what- the preceeding era when the Roman Empire was able to rule the western world by fiat and sometimes through a mad or incompetent emperor?
That argument must overlook some conflicting historical facts that do not further an ideological end. The Greeks were the most prolific contributors to western culture in antiquity. Western civilization stands on the pillars of the accomplishments of the ancient Greeks and its Judeo-Christian influences. The rise of science and its institutionalization took place in the west and there are cultural reasons for this. What occured in the MA was a continuum from ancient Greece to modern history. That period, like the era of the Romans before them, lacked the pace of advancement that characterized the Greek and modern eras which sandwich them. It is nonetheless true that the roots of modern science preceed the Renassiance and include a mesh of Judeo-Christian worldviews with those of the ancient Greeks.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Bradford:
Easily enough done. I watched a program last night on the History Channel all about how first century Christianity managed to survive in underground cities where their persecutors couldn't find them. The narrator talked incessantly of "Romans and Arabic Muslims" as being those persecutors. My grandson and I rolled our eyes at the same time before switching to the ubiquitous kill-em-all C-grade monster movie of the day on Sci-Fi…
Mohammed wasn't even a gleam in his grandpappy's eye in the first century A.D. History needs an actual historian fact-checker, seems to me.
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Wow. Who does the HC employ as an editor? They have some good programs but others that are clunkers.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
And the Arab world, which was the center of learning during that period as well as the only reason that much of the ancient canon is still known, is left out of your description for what I assume are non-ideological reasons?
In your view of things, the center of knowledge and learning never left Christendom during the Middle Ages, which entirely ignores the history of the Islamic Golden Age, the existence of the House of Wisdom, and the fact that the center of scholarly research west of India was in Baghdad.
Comment by grendelkhan — July 30, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I did not write what you allege because it is untrue. There were a number of monasteries throughout western Europe, outside the borders of Spain, where ancient manuscripts were located and preserved. That has nothing to do with the accomplishments within the Arab world which I have never disputed. If you are into stereotyping go elsewhere.
Strawman and not what I wrote. I'm aware of progress in other parts of the world and in no way indicated exclusivity. My initial comment was aimed at a darkness characterization which I compared to specific aspects of the Roman Empire which preceeded it.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
What the heck are you talking about ?
The whole shirt idea is just goofy and deserves to be mocked appropriately.
This is at least as goofy as the "God Jesus ?" t-shirts and the like you see around from time to time.
If religion is not above mockery and criticism for being goofy then neither is atheism of the comical fluff variety that Dawkins puts forward.
Comment by thesciphishow — July 30, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I never said there weren't. I said that western civilization relied heavily on the contributions of the medieval Muslims, who you left out of your descriptions.
No, you just ignored them. Your implication is–and correct me if I'm wrong–that wstern civilization rose through the Greeks and Romans, was maintained in the middle ages by Christendom, and flowered in the Renaissance. I criticize this view by pointing out that much of western civilization is drawn from medieval Islamic scholars and libraries. I maintain that it is legitimate to characterize this period as "Dark", because the center of learning and advancement was outside of Christendom at this point; its adherents were stuck duplicating old manuscripts and waiting for things to get better, while the Muslims in the middle east were doing research and inventing the windmill.
But the epithet "Dark Ages" was, especially in this thread, specifically used to refer to the advancement of science, knowledge, culture. Comparing the savagery of the Romans to the savagery of the medieval Christians is a red herring.
What are you talking about? Can you link to a picture of one of these shirts?
And neither are pathetic attempts at disguising mean-spirited attacks as jokes exempt from criticism. If you were paying attention, you'd notice that I was not complaining about MikeGene's mockery of the idea–which there wasn't much of–but rather his implication, by referring to the shirt as a "uniform" for Dawkins' "followers", and expendable ones at that (the red-shirt quip), that Dawkins is a megalomaniac who's going to try to take over the world any day now. Do you think that that is above criticism?
Comment by grendelkhan — July 30, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Middle-eastern Muslim culture is not a part of the west. Their contributions, like those of the Chinese or any non-western culture are obvious as are western contributions to their culture, but their value systems are outside our culture as are ours outside theirs.
Strawman and not what I wrote. I'm aware of progress in other parts of the world and in no way indicated exclusivity. My initial comment was aimed at a darkness characterization which I compared to specific aspects of the Roman Empire which preceeded it.
You could have added the savagery of 20th century atheist leaders but that would not fit in well with your anti-Christian mindset. Knowledge in western Europe did not cease to advance when barbarians overran the Roman Empire but don't let historic facts get in the way of your prejudices.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
What? What does that have to do with anything? Where do you get off accusing me of an anti-Christian mindset? I said that comparing atrocities is irrelevant to this particular discussion, which has to do with the advance of scholarship and knowledge inside and outside of Christendom during the Dark Ages. I could have also discussed how to make a dynamite fried rice, but it would have been just as irrelevant.
Western civilization didn't just receive contributions from medieval Islam; it depended on it intimately. Major parts of what would later be considered western civilization were developed in the Islamic world.
And the value systems of the Greeks and Romans were quite different from ours as well. (See: pederasty, gladiators, paganism, etc.) Why does this not disqualify them as the origin of western civilization?
I've specifically referred to the Islamic Golden Age, the House of Knowledge and at least one major invention adopted by Christendom, as well as the fact that while Europe was mired in the Dark Ages, the Islamic world was preserving (and building on) knowledge that was lost to the Europeans. You've airily hand-waved it away by referring to conveniently murky "historical facts". Please produce them if you have them.
Also, I didn't say that knowledge ceased to advance during the Dark Ages in Europe; I do maintain that the advance slowed greatly and that the center of learning moved into the Islamic world during the Islamic Golden Age before moving back into Europe during the Renaissance and, later, the Enlightenment.
Would you be so kind as to respond to what I actually say as opposed to what you wish I had said?
Comment by grendelkhan — July 30, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Whoops. I mean't "Got Jesus ?"
http://www.christiancraftsands...
A take off of the "Got Milk ?" ad.
Do I think that is above criticism ? Isn't that more or less Dawkins stated aim ?
He is certainly puffed up on his own self-importance and has repeatedly said he wants a religion free world. If Christians say they would like a more Christian oriented country they get accused of seeking to impose theocracy.
I don't think any of it was mean spirited. Take a pill. A mindless fluff merchant like Dawkins is ripe for satire and mockery when he behaves in a goofy manner. It is only a pity that this isn't the goofiest and silliest thing he has ever done. The God Delusion takes that prize currently. Though I wait and see if he can top himself.
Comment by thesciphishow — July 30, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
The nature of a society may be irrelevant to your version of what is dark but not mine. But even by your own criteria huge blocks of non-western historic cultures in other continents and other time periods would have to be considered "Dark Ages" based on similar or lesser advances in knowledge. Yet that term is oddly applied to only one culture and one time era.
Of course. The same could be said of ancestors of modern Muslims and many other cultures. The point is the Greeks and Romans left us a cultural legacy that the Mayans and Australian Aborigines and hundreds of other cultures did not.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
All it took was a t-shirt from ARN to completely derail yet another TT conversation. Bwa Ha Ha Ha!
[rubs hands together with glee]
Comment by salimfadhley — July 30, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
So are you acknowledging that you are trolling? Are you asking to be banned?
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked salimfadhley…
But this thread's catagory is HUMOR, remember?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 30, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I also remember the other threads where he has attempted to derail discussions.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Hi grendelkhan,
I'm not so sure. The uniform could have just an "˜A' on it, but for some reason, it comes with RichardDawkins.net under it. Sounds to me like a marketing gimmick. Like I said, you get to pay $20 to wear an advertisement around town.
Well, if PZ models the uniform on his web page, be sure to send us the link. BTW, did you notice that Richard Dawkins himself has not modeled the uniform?
Did you order your uniform yet?
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I can't imagine Dawkins ever appearing anywhere in a t-shirt. If you see him appearing in this shirt, let me know.
If you'd bothered to read what I've written, you'd know. Also, thanks for making my point by repeatedly using the word 'uniform'. Drop me a line when you see the hordes of godless skipping down Main Street shoulder-to-shoulder, will you? And try not to hyperventilate too much in the meantime.
Comment by grendelkhan — July 30, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Hi grendelkhan,
Check out the front page of the official dawkins web site.
C'mon, don't ya think it looks a little bit like a uniform?
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Some of PZ's fan club are all panty-wadded because the A logo looks too much like graffiti for anarchists, or agnostics, or adulterers, and don't want to pay $20 (plus shipping!) for the dubious privilege of advertising Dawkins' website for him.
While at Dawkins' site we get comments like…
To the general tenor of which which PZ replied [#49]…
Ah, well. You'll have this when herding cats. §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Honestly, don't you folks have anything better to do?
So Richard Dawkins decides to sell some t-shirts to promote him and his cause, just like every other corporation, rock band, nonprofit, or any other organization in the modern world. This is an occasion for 50+ comments?
I'm not a big fan of the A shirt, there are much better pro-evolution shirts available here. Now, maybe we can grow this thread to the 200 comment mark.
Comment by mtraven — July 30, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
re·li·gion (rÄ-lÄj'É™n)
n.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Hey kids, defend your shirts today - but buy them tomorrow after justifying your world view against "˜religion'. This definitely belongs in "˜humor'"¦ I realize Dick Dawkins probably will not sport the Tshirt but I bet he'd wear the "A" cape (or maybe just a Dawkins dickie).
Comment by Good ID — July 30, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I've seen a picture of him on the beach wearing an Atheists For Jesus t-shirt. I think it was at Galapagos.
Comment by onething — July 30, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 12:07 am
Did you say a French bank? Maybe this shirt will make a much needed statement.
http://www.scienceteecher.com/...
Comment by Jehu — July 31, 2007 @ 12:07 am
July 31st, 2007 at 9:59 am
Joy Says:
ROFL! I have repeatedly pointed out to my teenage son, who's learning how to drive, the strange correlation of the number of Christian stickers and decals on a vehicle to its driver's inability to achieve the speed limit.
thesciphishow Says:
Exactly. It's hilarious to me how the supposedly enlightened, open-minded, tolerant, logical, and reality-based contingent here are getting so bent out of shape about MikeGene mocking Dawkins' weird simultaneous acts of self-aggrandizement and martyrdom complex. They act almost as if Dawkins was something more than a smart ape, and was promoting something more than a non-belief.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 31, 2007 @ 9:59 am
July 31st, 2007 at 10:27 am
Well. I certainly wasn't expecting that. Thanks.
Well, if you line up a batch of people like the picture in the post, and crop off their heads… no, still not really. Maybe if they were all the same color.
But this is still ridiculous–you want me to countenance your framing of "Dawkins sells t-shirts" with "Dawkins is selling uniforms for his army". Give it up.
No, I'm getting bent out of shape because MikeGene insists on characterizing the sale of t-shirts as the compulsory adoption of a uniform for Dawkins' jackbooted shock troops. I didn't get bent out of shape about his criticism of them being somewhat overpriced and crass (what with the URL right there). I did get bent out of shape about MikeGene's repeatedly referring to a t-shirt as a "uniform", presumably to be worn by "militant" atheists, but only the "followers", as Commisar Dawkins will be directing the action from his secret underground lair.
Is there some way I can make this clearer? Some way in which I've failed to express myself unambiguously?
I guess life provides a lot more hilarity when you can pretend people are saying things that they're really not.
Comment by grendelkhan — July 31, 2007 @ 10:27 am
July 31st, 2007 at 10:35 am
upon first seeing these, i figured it was some photoshop joke: juxtaposing an a with dawkins website link seemed ambigiously to imply both (dawkins') "athiesm" and words like abusive, arrogant, asinine, and of course ass. on finding that these are real shirts, i wonder if it was dawkins intention to have it ambigious, so that we would laugh at him and improve his victim complex. i also wonder if he is aware that a large population of kids between 15-30 years old have been wearing a far more affective shirt by a far more popular outlet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
these guys have been putting their band logo on tshirts since the 80s, and these shirts are somewhat popular among a group dawkins' claims to be helping out of the closet. maybe all you old foggys just dont know what the emerging generations are about.
Comment by dantedanti — July 31, 2007 @ 10:35 am
July 31st, 2007 at 11:05 am
dantedanti: Yes, but the Bad Religion logo is rather explicitly anti-Christian (though the band apparently doesn't consider itself anti-Christian; go figure). Considering all the whining directed at Dawkins for not ragging on Islam to the same extent he rags on Christianity (I assume because the targets of his criticism wish to deflect it to pretend he's not attacking their religion as well), I think it would reach rather deafening levels. Besides, atheism already has enough of a PR problem being tarred as exclusively a negative thing. Instead of saying "I am not a Christian, and dislike Christianity", better to say "I am an atheist", and I think that's what the shirt campaign is trying to do.
But, of course, getting atheists to agree on anything is like herding cats. At best, it'll be one more drop in the bucket of atheist symbols. The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from, eh?
Comment by grendelkhan — July 31, 2007 @ 11:05 am
July 31st, 2007 at 11:59 am
Chris Hitchens is going to have to write a book about Dawkins' website and how it poisons atheism.
They are enlisting readers to distribute flyers using the Twin-Towers images now.
http://richarddawkins.net/imag...
Comment by Pez — July 31, 2007 @ 11:59 am
July 31st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Where have you been? That flyer has been out since at least last year; I think it was part of the advertising campaign for Root of All Evil?.
Perhaps theists can counter with flyers of the Gulags or heaps of Holocaust victims, and label them "Imagine No Atheism"; atheists would counter with either flyers showing a Nazi stormtrooper with a close-up of one of those "Gott mit Uns" belt buckles they wore, or Hitler and Stalin with the legend "Imagine No Mustaches". Nativist wingnuts can get in on the action by recaptioning the flyers "Imagine No Islam", or perhaps "Imagine No Arabs". Then we could have Iran sponsor a poster contest involving the caption "Imagine No Jews", and perhaps some guilty liberals could get in on the action with pictures of the massacre at Wounded Knee and such and the caption "Imagine No White People".
Comment by grendelkhan — July 31, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Oh.
Then it's nothing like a religion.
Comment by Pez — July 31, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I can't tell what you're talking about; could you be more specific?
Comment by grendelkhan — July 31, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Hi grendelkhan,
I didn't design that picture; the Dawkins people designed it. And yes, it looks like a uniform to me, even reminding me of the Star Trek uniforms. But I'm not the only one. According to PZ Myers, others at Dawkins' site didn't like it because it too reminded them of a uniform: "The nay-sayers who complain that this is too much like Christianity, it's a uniform, it's Dawkins trying to enforce conformity."
You are putting words in my mouth; you are the one talking about an army, not me.
Now your misperceptions are expanding. Selling became "compulsory adoption" and "followers" have morphed into "army" then "Dawkins' jackbooted shock troops." You are arguing with phantoms in your own mind here.
Your anger continues to cloud your vision.
You can cap your letters, bold them, and put exclamation points on them. But it is probably not needed, as you have made it clear that you are very sensitive about people laughing at Dawkins' attempt to fuel a new socio-political movement with t-shirts that look like uniforms.
Then again, maybe "˜uniform' is not the right word. They also remind me of super-hero costumes, something like Superman's big "˜S.'
Given your reaction to my very mild bit of chuckling, I think you are projecting. Perhaps it would help if you viewed it in ways where you are used to laughing. The ARN t-shirts don't quite capture what's happening over at RichardDawkins.com. Imagine if Michael Behe bought the domain name MichaelBehe.com and was selling a t-shirt with a big "˜IC' on it with the domain name underneath, while marketing it as a way for design proponents to "come OUT" from under their persecution. Maybe you personally would not chuckle at this, but we all know of many big fish among the critics would be having a great time with it all.
Comment by MikeGene — July 31, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Hi All,
In case it needs to be said. Here are the lyrics to John Lennon's Imagine
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 31, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Hi Mike,
That occurred to me as well.
I think I dismissed them too soon as I bet they would look real snazzy with a towel pinned around the wearer's neck.
Comment by Pez — July 31, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Comment by MikeGene — July 31, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 12:58 pm
When Dawkins starts speaking in rhyme then Evil Bar Religion is in real trouble.
"Have no fear … New Atheist is here!"
Comment by Pez — July 31, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Hi Mike,
NOT FAIR!
It's one thing to use your image placing ability for opening posts, but using it for comments is taking unfair advantage of your power.
Now, if you wanted to grant image rights to me, I have a few interesting graphs and pictures of microtubules acting like quantum computers I would like to share.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 31, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Pez wrote…
Wrong hero. That was Underdog.
This would be…
"Up and at 'em, Atheism".
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 31, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Lol.
Thanks, TP, my mistake.
Nice rhyme, by the way.
ps.
I now eagerly await the photo-shopping of Dawkins into this uniform/costume to set him on some merry adventures.
Comment by Pez — July 31, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Mike:
Alas, poor Grendel. Mighty Beowulf has rendered him asunder with great peals of laughter, of the peculiarly Nordic type, that mead-soaked soul-deep guffawing at the threatening specters of death and storms at sea!
For the humor challenged, there's just no getting it. It's a little sad, really.
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
grendelkhan Says:
That and excruciatingly long, deadpan diatribes defending the antics of a smart ape compelled by his genes (no doubt) to hoot about some non-belief.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 31, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
And I never said that you did.
And your habit of referring to Dawkins' fans as "militant", to t-shirts sold from his website as "uniforms", referring to those wearing them as being as expendable as red-shirts in Star Trek–none of this, to you, says "army"
Ah, so the perennial threatiness that appears on this blog about how Dawkins is going to be rounding up polite old church ladies into his atheist gulags is, what, simply a florid metaphor?
Well, it did make me misspell "commissar". But yes, I do get slightly cranky when people misquote me and pretend I say things I didn't. I inferred a few things from your statements here and other meme's that have been floating around this blog. You've denied that you've said them, and so I've explained my inferences. If they're wrong, please explain how. I'm going to, again, explain how you're not listening to me.
No, I just don't think it's particularly funny when you go on about how threaty it is that Dawkins is selling t-shirts, and do your best to imply that he's the authoritarian dictator of his own private army, then claim that (a) it was just a joke, and (b) you never implied that in the first place.
I've always been partial to that lightning bolt shirt from Mage, but that's just a matter of taste.
I'm not reacting to your "very mild bit of chuckling"; I was at first reacting to your persistent implication that anything Dawkins does is the harbinger of authoritarian repression of Christians, and now I'm reacting to your attempt to hide behind the cover of "it was only a joke".
I'd probably think it was a bit silly. What's your point?
While your concern is touching, I think it's a bit misplaced. I was thinking of taking up oenology, though.
But it's not particularly funny. What humor there is is being used as a fig leaf to cover up a poor excuse for an argument that MikeGene repeatedly refuses to admit he's been making, over and over again, with practically every reference to Richard Dawkins.
Not laughing at an inept joke doesn't make one humor-challenged.
Comment by grendelkhan — July 31, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Writing essay-length rebuttals to "inept jokes", however…
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 31, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 3:12 pm
If you don't like them, nobody is compelling you to read my posts. If you're attempting to slink out without looking like you've conceded anything, your best bet is to type out a number of hooting, laughing sounds (e.g., "HAHA oh wow you're an idiot; I'm not going to waste my time on this LOL"), and call me names (possibly throwing in a fart joke as homage to stunney). Bonus points can be attained by repeating MikeGene's mischaracterization of my positions, for instance that I am against MikeGene's indulgence in "a minor bit of chuckling", or that I have a problem with people making fun of the campaign; alternatively, you could branch out and repeat Joy's diagnosis that I'm humor-challenged because I'm not laughing at MikeGene's attempt at a joke.
It's an attempt, hoping against hope, that if I explain it one more time, in yet more detail, you'll understand what I'm saying rather than responding to the imaginary me who lives in your head. For instance, my problem isn't, and never has been, with MikeGene's anemic sense of humor. I take issue with him using it as an excuse for his extraordinarily disingenuousness. Can you tell the difference?
Comment by grendelkhan — July 31, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 9:34 pm
i find this comment highly offensive.
also…TP: what about christians who don't believe in heaven or hell? what about those of us that think john lennon was a yuppy?
Comment by dantedanti — July 31, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 10:13 pm
If you don't like the herding cats analogy, you'll have to take it up with Dawkins and PZ as well as their choirs. That's how they describe themselves and the unexpected resistance to the new atheist symbol/uniform and "outing" campaign underway.
How come you don't take offense at the "outing" terminology? Lots of Dawkins' catty nay-sayers do.
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Hi dantedanti,
Noun 1. yuppie - a young upwardly mobile professional person; someone under 40 who prospered during the 1980sLennon wrote Imagine in 1971 this was during a time the US was at war to stop the "godless communists" in Vietnam.
He retired in 1975 to be with his wife and son.
In 1980, Lennon turned 40, came out of retirement and was shot. Not a good year for him.
The point of my posting the lyrics was to remind people the point of "Imagine No Religion" is to imagine a world where there we all live for today and there is nothing to kill or die for.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 31, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
ThoughtProvoker, it certainly sounds nice to imagine a world in which people did not kill each other, but I think Lennon is a bit naive in terms of what he describes as potential motivations. One would have to add eliminating romantic love to the list, since that's certainly been a big motivator of violence over the ages. The Texas Cadet Murder being just one example:
http://www.courttv.com/archive...
Sadly, people will always find a reason to do harm to each other. The only solution I can see to that is eliminating people altogether, which is not something I'd be willing to do for obvious reasons.
Comment by AliceL — July 31, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 11:17 pm
I don't think I can imagine a world in which there was nothing to die for.
Not one that would be worth living in, at any rate.
On the other hand, what I can imagine is wearing one of those nifty costumes with a pair of boxer shorts pulled over my pajama bottoms.
With the right towel around my neck I imagine I might even be able to fly.
Comment by Pez — July 31, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Hi AliceL,
I am not suggesting John Lennon was an infallible prophet.
I read "kill or die for" as a set. Would it have been better if he said "kill AND die for"
Of course there a plenty of motivations that can turn individuals into suicidal killing machines. But patriotism and religion encourage it to be done openly and in an organized fashion. It is the fact that it is done with pride and a sense of righteousness that makes it all the more egregious by my way of thinking.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 31, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 11:59 pm
TP:
A very naive vision TP. Most of those who die do so at the behest of more powerful and selfish members of their societal group. As long as the powers to be are able to kill and die by proxy that world will remain imaginary.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2007 @ 11:59 pm