Perhaps this may be a worthwhile effort, to have a global search or contest for an avatar which expresses the “essence” of humanism. Something one can hang on the wall and occasionally (or regularly) meditate on its subliminal message of our place and purpose in the universe.

I suggest one you have already mentioned and one I have personally used for the last 45 years, the ND or dove’s foot symbol that has now gone international. Even my students are aware of it’s original connotation of peace and cooperation. While I’m well aware that it won’t happen the sugn did have a humanist reason behind it’s creation and one we labored under to stop total annihilation So, yeah I think the old “peace sign” would do quite nicely. It connotes our purpose as saving mankind and everything else corporeal from being blasted into atoms. Think Cuban missle crisis if you want a real scare.

Cap’t Jack

Write4U - 30 November 2012 04:27 PM

Every religion has an avatar, a symbolic abstract representation of the deity (god) it describes. Thus when one prays one prays to the “whole” contained in the avatar. And when done right, a feeling of “oneness”, a belongong”, ecstacy, is the result. This is the strength of symbolic ritual.

As far as I can tell Atheism has no such symbol. This is perectly understandable as atheism is a non-belief.  But as a result atheists who are Humanists have no way to focus and direct their “inner self” toward a “concept” of good and right.
I have not seen an avatar which represents humanist values, other than “peace”,  “save the whales”, “save the trees”, “save the earth”, etc. butg those are specific objectives. I am looking for a psychological symbolism that describes the humane qualities of humans. An inspirational code
Perhaps this may be a worthwhile effort, to have a global search or contest for an avatar which expresses the “essence” of humanism. Something one can hang on the wall and occasionally (or regularly) meditate on its subliminal message of our place and purpose in the universe.

Ideas?

How about a picture of a curious monkey looking through binoculars?  No, wait, that’s taken, and that’s for atheism, anyway.  How about, simply, a picture of the greatest humanist of all time, whoever that is?

Jack, what is “the ND or dove’s foot symbol”?

It’s the old peace sign from the 60’s Tim. It now appears on kids clothing for a retro-hippie look. ND refers to the old semaphore flag system N=the two flags in straight up position while D=the two flags held in the down position by the signeker’s side. ND stands for nuclear disarmament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_symbols

Cap’t Jack

That’s signaler’s side BTW. Damned IPad, every time I miss a letter it substitutes what it thinks is the word you want.

I never realized it was designed specifically for nuclear disarmament.  I always thought of it as a generic symbol for peace in general.

Thevillageatheist - 30 November 2012 05:46 PM

... Damned IPad, every time I miss a letter it substitutes what it thinks is the word you want.

My “smart"phone does that also, when I try to text… it’s more like a smart-ass phone.

My “smart"phone does that also, when I try to text… it’s more like a smart-ass phone.

It’s also my large fingers. I need a bigger keyboard not to mention I’m not a Very accurate typist. I use the Columbus method: discover and land!

Cap’t Jack

TimB - 30 November 2012 02:15 PM

George - 30 November 2012 01:48 PM

TimB - 30 November 2012 01:32 PM

Even identical twins have different experiences

...and neither are they genetically identical. The may have the same DNA, but they have slightly different amounts of it. That’s why they differ already at the moment of birth. I thought you may want to know that.

Sure, and they may have had different environmental experiences within the womb, e.g., one recieving more nutrients than the other, or one having the umbilical cord wrapped around its neck. Also, one is born first.  One is born second. (I didn’t want to belabor my point more than I typically do anyway.)

Twins are cool subject for a new thread maybe
One of my many cousins are twins.
The sad thing is that despite them so similar
one got many friends and the other did not.
when the popular twin died the other twin
did stay as lonely as before. The friends of
the first twin could not transfer their friendship
the remaining twin.

To me that shows that the “mitigation” is a very difficult process.
Maybe some have a talent for it and others lack or have little of it.

I have Asperger and have met many other Aspergers.
Despite me having same diagnose as the others I can not stand them.

They love to tell me how wonderful ASD is and that they are the new
way to be human and that the NeuroTypical old way to be human sucks.

Well I’ve tested to be with NT types and with ASD types and
I do prefer the more normal NT types. To show empathy is
way better than to have it but seldom show it like ASD tend to do.

I fail myself to show empathy in the proper way I would want to.
I seem to lack the body expressions for to do it without it looks
like an a C-actor at a low budget movie.

Tim I do agree we should do our best to show each to have the rights
to be equally treated but it is not realistic to promise something
that simply fails in practice. Humans are very hierarchical in nature
and all schools and work places and neighborhoods that I have experience of
all of them had hierarchy and pecking order and even if it is not outright
discrimination it does means that some people fail to get equally treated
like my cousin that despite being twin failed to get same friends to her sister.

Such small differences are enough between being popular and left alone.
People are extremely choosy in what they see value in and what not.

Reading about your problem with the Ipad
I realize that the religious Cult of Jobs
demand that we use the Apple as the sign
of Humanism. Nothing else will do
And the Apple is the symbol for sin
and to place oneself in place of God
has to be the ultimate sin so an Apple it is

Just kidding.

So you guys think that the Next Future Faith
will need a symbol already now? Why not
that maybe will trigger it to start growing

IHEU already have the Happy Human “H” symbol
and Atheism Plus use the A that also is used by
the Dawkins Come out as atheist campaign?

Having been bullied all my life I am no happy human
and the extreme treatment one get in the A+ forum
does not make me eager to adopt their symbol.

What about the Secular Humanists symbol for Xmas?
The Human Light? http://humanlight.org/

quote
HumanLight illuminates Humanism’s positive secular vision. ...
HumanLight presents an alternative reason to celebrate:
a Humanist’s vision of a good future.
It is a future in which all people can identify with each other,
behave with the highest moral standards, and work together
toward a happy .../quote

I guess it is partially a reminder of the Enlightenment
of the Modern individualism that the French Revolution
and the Declaration of Independence of Lords and Kings
and Church and Feudal oppression? Just me guessing.

But will that really create the Next Future Faith?

TransHumanists some of them use the word Better Humans
them wanting to improve on the current human design.
To make us Cyber Human with better sight and audio
and better memory and better logic and critical reasoning
and what have you Better feelings? Enhanced experiences

Positive Psychology also has such aim? Them wanting a
psychology that start from what we are good at.
and not what we fails at.

Being as pessimistic as I am I am skeptical to the overly
optimistic views of Atheism Plus, Secular Humanism,
Transhumanism and Ayn Rand Objectivist optimism of
us Flourishing.

the tension between extreme individualism that shun anything collective
and the extreme group think of fundy collectivism that run over any individual
seems to be with us for a long time.

So I predict that to be trait that are rather stable. It means we will see
global movements that are extremely individualistic and also extremely
collective. Atheism Plus as they behave now is a curious mix between
extreme individualism that expresses itself through an extreme group think.

Rebecca Watson mocking of Evolutionary Psychology could show a trend
towards a coalition of Extreme Left hatred of White Middle Age Men
and their hated Science and the Intelligent Design hatred of Evolution
them starting to cooperate to make science into a hobby for the White men
in his attic or cellar or Garage.

The group think where so strong that AFAIK none dared to challenge her?
Everybody realized that the only way to survive is to submit to that group?

I hope Steven Pinker is strong enough to write something that makes
a good balance take on Evolutionary Psychology. It is not fair to dismiss
every single researcher due to a few bad apples.

My hasty prediction is that Political Correctness under another name
will be one of the biggest religious organized body in the future.

An absolute fundamentalistic and literalistic movement that will be ruthless
in it’s hatred against natural science. There is no sign that they will reconsider.
They feel that they have the winning strategy and will take it all.

FredW - 01 December 2012 01:03 AM

...
Tim I do agree we should do our best to show each to have the rights
to be equally treated but it is not realistic to promise something
that simply fails in practice. Humans are very hierarchical in nature
and all schools and work places and neighborhoods that I have experience of
all of them had hierarchy and pecking order and even if it is not outright
discrimination it does means that some people fail to get equally treated…

When I suggested that it is most rational that “we mitigate our judgments of others and strive to mitigate the circumstances of those who are less fortunate”, I was suggesting it as a value that would be most in line with how our universe actually, ultimately, operates (i.e., we are each a product of our deterministic universe, and are how we are, by chance rather than by anyone being intrinsically superior to anyone else).

But that is probably pie-in-the-sky idealism, for various reasons.  1) Most people don’t understand what I just said.
2) Perhaps most people are even incapable of understanding this, or will simply never be motivated to understand this.  3) We are in part, biologically prepared to be hierarchical in our social interactions, and even cultures tend to require hierarchical structure, thus leading to the supposition (or reality, in most practically functioning societies) that some persons have more worth than others. 4) Humans have not evolved to tend toward being completely rational.  We are quite emotional creatures and also inherently seem to tend to decieve even ourselves, at times, through rationalization (which is sometimes far from actual rationality). 5) If we try to instill the value, of intrinsic human equality, in others, even starting with children from a very early age, we may not have as great of success as we might hope. 6) We are probably biologically pre-disposed toward developing morals that suggest that some people are better than others and deserve more or less reward or punishment…

But still, I suggest, as you implied, that we should do our best to instill the value that all people are intrinsically of equal worth, except by chance.

And I think that you are also correct in your observation that it is not realistic to expect that this value will be easily transmitted culturally, and even it were, it would often fail as a practical matter. (As I said, I would enjoy seeing your bullies, get their asses kicked, and this is not quite in line with the value that I am proposing. I’m only human).

But I am a human who thinks that humanistic values (tempered by our scientific understanding and our best rational thinking) are ultimately best for our society.

Fred, That Humanlight symbol is not a bad idea as a symbol for humanism.

FredW - 01 December 2012 01:36 AM

...
Rebecca Watson mocking of Evolutionary Psychology could show a trend
towards a coalition of Extreme Left hatred of White Middle Age Men
and their hated Science and the Intelligent Design hatred of Evolution
them starting to cooperate to make science into a hobby for the White men
in his attic or cellar or Garage.

The group think where so strong that AFAIK none dared to challenge her?
Everybody realized that the only way to survive is to submit to that group?

I hope Steven Pinker is strong enough to write something that makes
a good balance take on Evolutionary Psychology. It is not fair to dismiss
every single researcher due to a few bad apples.

My hasty prediction is that Political Correctness under another name
will be one of the biggest religious organized body in the future.

An absolute fundamentalistic and literalistic movement that will be ruthless
in it’s hatred against natural science. There is no sign that they will reconsider.
They feel that they have the winning strategy and will take it all.

I don’t follow Rebecca Watson.  Are you saying that she, in particular, is dismissive of
“every single researcher in Evolutionary Psychology, due to a few bad apples”?

There are junk scientists in every field who are probably deserving of mockery.  Part of how science works is through critical review.  If the hard research ultimately, and repeatedly, fits the conclusions, then it becomes accepted by scientifically minded persons.

I think that there are Evolutionary Psychologists who are doing just fine, but when, and if, their work can’t stand up to scrutiny and rational challenges, it probably shouldn’t.

Also, again, I suspect that you are over-focusing or overly concerned about some persons’ ideas of, or some organized
movement(?) having to do with, “political correctness”. 

I can relate, however, to your concerns about “fundamentalistic and literalistic movement that will be ruthless
in it’s hatred against natural science”.  Although a bit overstated, that could already be, somewhat, applied to the extremes of the religious right in the U.S.

Now that Stephen J. Gould is dead and Richard Lewontin is losing his mind, I think the worst of the PC danger in science is behind us. There are obviously enough people today who still derive “is” out of “ought,” but the evidence is strong enough against their PC ideology not to allow them to spread their nonsense as effectively as it was possible for Gould and Lewontin in the seventies.

Thevillageatheist - 30 November 2012 05:46 PM

That’s signaler’s side BTW. Damned IPad, every time I miss a letter it substitutes what it thinks is the word you want.

Auto-correct can be handy sometimes, but at others it is a pain in the posterior.