this post was submitted on
493 points (71% like it)
813 up votes 320 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,162,608 readers

1,460 users here now

Help Atheist Organizations!

The Secular Student Alliance, Camp Quest, and Foundation Beyond Belief were all nominated for the Chase Community Giving program, which awards grants based on the votes of the public. Everyone gets 2 votes on Facebook, plus an additional one if they share a CCG page. The links for them are:

SSA | CQ | FBB

Voting runs from September 6-19

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

492
493

My new desktop background. (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by lemonfreedom

all 200 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]TomTheHatter 36 points37 points ago

When theists attempt to label atheism as a religion they often cite that we 'worship' figures such as NDGT, Hitchens and others.

This picture does kind of play on that idea.

[–]udbluehens 7 points8 points ago

Every night, when Im eating my baby, I take one of its fingers and transfigure it into Bill Nye the Science Guy's body. Mmmm, science guy

[–]Beliskner 4 points5 points ago

Where can you find good baby this time of year?

[–]udbluehens 6 points7 points ago

In a vagina.

[–]imadoood 0 points1 point ago

Abortion-alternative pregnancy centers. Plus, you'll be doing them a service.

[–]AgletsHowDoTheyWork 1 point2 points ago

Bring your own straw.

[–]StChas77 1 point2 points ago

Kind of?

[–]EmpiricalSkeptic 2 points3 points ago

Best part is that NDGT already stated that he's an agnostic, not atheist. You would think they would honor the fact that he makes a point to show the distinction.

[–]TomTheHatter -5 points-4 points ago

Carl Sagan, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and Neil De-Grasse Tyson all identified as agnostics - So the whole image is starting to look a bit iffy.

[–]andjok 14 points15 points ago

I think the original title of the picture is supposed to be "Champions of Reason," so they don't necessarily have to identify as atheists. Also, since when did Dawkins identify as agnostic?

[–]TomTheHatter 2 points3 points ago

In a subreddit devoted to atheism, one COULD expect to find only atheist figures. But you are right of course, there's no reason as to why they have to be atheists.

And Richard Dawkins identifies as an agnostic... That is a fact. A quick Google shows various quotes saying thus:

  • 'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.'

  • 'I can't be sure God does not exist'

There are more examples, but I'm sure you're perfectly capable of Googling.

Hope I said that without sounding condescending - I find it's difficult not to be when refuting someone!

[–]andjok 6 points7 points ago

Those quotes are from the God Delusion, which I have read and he still identifies as an atheist within the book. I'm pretty sure most atheists on here wouldn't call themselves a 7 on Dawkins' scale. I would identify as a 6 myself.

[–]killerbotmax 0 points1 point ago

On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is believeing in a "Faskhvgd" and 7 is being sure one doesn't exist, I would say we are all at 7.

But you can't prove that "Faskhvgd" doesn't exist.

[–]andjok -1 points0 points ago

Well I'd say you can't be 100 percent certain of anything outside of your own mind, but of course it's pointless to doubt the existence of everything.

I don't think I'll be a 7 until hard evidence of a multiverse comes in, if it ever does in my lifetime.

[–]TomTheHatter -1 points0 points ago

Well then we have got some contradicting information!

How irritating.

He identified as an atheist in the God Delusion yet identified as an agnostic during a debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury at Oxford University. However the most recent 'update' on his leanings are him identifying as agnostic. What with The God Delusion being some years old now, I'll go with his most recent comment.

[–]gilligan156 5 points6 points ago

He explains that he cannot be a 7 atheist because you cannot disprove God. Being a 7 atheist is approximately the same as being a 1 fundie; in that you believe something that doesn't have proof or evidence. He explains that the closest you can rationally get is a 6, because while you can't disprove God completely, you can make a case that the existence of gods is very, very, very, very unlikely.

So he is agnostic only so far as to say that he can't say with 100% absolute certainty based on evidence that there is no god, so he is therefore technically agnostic, but for all intents and purposes he is atheist, in that he does not believe in Gods.

He doesn't believe in Gods, but can't with 100% certainty say there are none. Does that make sense? When you need evidence to back up absolute statements, you can't make an absolute statement without proof.

[–]TomTheHatter 0 points1 point ago

It absolutely makes sense.

I don't believe in there being a horned elf in my jeans pocket but I cannot possibly say for certain that there isn't. But then again I've never seen a horned elf and there's no evidence for it, so I cannot believe in it.

(That was a terrible analogy, but...)

[–]andjok 1 point2 points ago

Ah. I didn't know that so that's why I asked! Sometimes I wonder if people like him choose to identify as agnostic because of the stigma that atheism carries. I used to identify as agnostic myself because I really don't think it's possible to know for sure if there was a creator and because of the stigma attached, but for all practical purposes I now consider myself atheist, no agnostic or gnostic qualifier.

[–]TomTheHatter -1 points0 points ago

Trouble with agnosticism is the misconceptions surrounding it. A common belief is that it's the cowardly belief, as you don't want to identify as theistic or atheistic. For me, theism and atheism implies a sense of 'Knowing that I'm right'.

So I just say I'm atheist and everybody knows what I means.

I'm glad we settled this - I thought I had bumbled myself into an argument!

[–]andjok 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, I think Dawkins even talked in the God Delusion about how he thought agnosticism was a weak position, and that was one thing I disagreed with.

I actually used to think atheism was a position of arrogance myself, since I thought it was impossible to know for sure.

But in the end, one-word labels are useless because not everybody has the same worldview, and you can't really know exactly what they believe until you talk to them or read what they've written.

[–]Aerithia1 1 point2 points ago

It's easy to get lost looking at someones different ideas and the points at which they conflict when someone such as Dawkins is trying to prove a point.

Considering he's spoken about Militant Atheism I'd imagine he is an atheist, despite being a 6 on the scale out of 7. I'd identify as an atheist yet still say I'm at a 6 on that scale.

You can be an atheist without being certain that God does not exist, and stating without a doubt that God does not exist is kind of a bad move.

[–]TomTheHatter 1 point2 points ago

That still doesn't account for when Dawkins described himself as agnostic.

I'll end this argument now, I never intended to debate:

  • Dawkins has described himself as an atheist in the past, however more recently, he has described himself as an agnostic. Therefore I choose to go by his own words and not someone else's interpretation of his actions.

Have a good day, r/atheism - I'm just going in circles here, but thank you for the stimulating conversation!

[–]bernie16wb 0 points1 point ago

Yes but I think you're using different versions of the term agnostic really. Dawkins has described himself as a sort of agnostic atheist being that he doesn't believe in a god or gods nor does he find the existence or possibility of one likely in the least. However he cannot completely rule out the possibility of a god(s) so that's where you get the agnostic part.

[–]tvetus 0 points1 point ago

No rational person would claim to be a 7. Even Christopher Hitchens used to repeat often that it's not possible to prove that god(s) don't exist.

[–]wut999 1 point2 points ago

You sound like you don't understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

Read: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/faq#Whataboutagnosticism

[–]TomTheHatter 0 points1 point ago

Maybe I was wrong to claim Richard Dawkins in an agnostic despite him having said it himself.

Maybe I was being unreasonable to expect agnosticism to not feature heavily in a subreddit about atheism.

What I am certain of however; is that 16 days later I've stopped giving the sufficient amount fucks to explain my poorly written out comments. But I'll give it one more go - if only to redeem myself.

  • I assumed atheism would be found in /r/atheism and agnosticism would be found in /r/agnosticism. Due to them being two very different things. This was a mistake and I can see that now.

  • Dawkins has stated recently that he is an agnostic (during a debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury). He has stated in the past that he is an atheist, but I went by his most recent inclination.

  • I agree with Dawkins on his definition of agnosticism. This does contradict the paragraph you linked to, somewhat - but this only proves my point that the true definition is up for debate.

I'll upvote you. But honestly only because you showed me courtesy when contradicting me... when you could have easily been an ass.

[–]Mungo9OOO 1 point2 points ago

Paraphrasing Dawkins, he says he is agnostic about God in just the same way that he's agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.

[–]andjok 0 points1 point ago

I am aware of that quote, but I was previously aware that he still identified as atheist.

Not that it really matters, his views are far more complex than a simple label.

[–]snooow -1 points0 points ago

Richard Dawkins as well. [EDIT] This always happens when I say that. Don't downvote because you don't like something. At the very least, explain yourself.

[–]TomTheHatter -2 points-1 points ago

Included.

Edit: Richard Dawkins has said before he is an agnostic. But hey! Downvotes make it not true.

[–]lightningz1 0 points1 point ago

I disagree, there is a difference between worshiping someone as a god and appreciating intelligence.

[–]spankymuffin 0 points1 point ago

Yup. I am 100% opposed to this bullshit.

Nobody should be making a big deal about merely lacking belief, theists and atheists alike.

[–]darklightrabbi 34 points35 points ago

You know this is the background of /r/magicskyfairy right?

[–]Battlesheep 7 points8 points ago

and the faces is one of the headers of /r/circlebroke2, this is used a lot to mock r/atheism

[–]jacobhghs43 5 points6 points ago

I'm sure he does, he just decided to be brave and post it anyway.

[–]l3dig 1 point2 points ago

I do now you beautiful redditor!

[–]hidden_munky 0 points1 point ago

and circlejerks facebook page right.

[–]lemonfreedom[S] -5 points-4 points ago

wow, I'm subscribed and didn't even notice that

[–]Illuminatesfolly 7 points8 points ago

╔═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╗

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Repost this if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ you are a brave strong r/atheism moderator ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ who literally does less than r/anarchy mods ~ ~

╚═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╝

[–]dizavin -4 points-3 points ago

wow. you put a lot of effort into that.

it's a shame I'm going to, literally, forget all about your lame post in about 45 minutes.

[–]Illuminatesfolly 2 points3 points ago

DOHOHOHO. I guess I have to remind you that I am here and that I need your affection / attention now that it has been longer than 45 minutes.

[–]Agnostic_Thomist 5 points6 points ago

Looks a bit kitsch tbh.

[–]brainburger 15 points16 points ago

Some criticism of this picture here.

In particular, it doesn't include any women. I can't think of so many women important to the movement right now though. Is this a failing of the movement? I'd like to see Ayaan Hirsi Ali have a higher profile.

[–]darklightrabbi 3 points4 points ago

Essentially, even if you can make the argument that Dr. Tyson is an atheist, it is wrong to co-opt him into the atheist movement as a "hero" against his will.

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!

[–]hidden101 4 points5 points ago

i think the artist probably just included the people he/she identifies with the most and it had nothing to do with sexism. while i agree it would be cool to have "Madalyn Murray Fucking O'Hair" included on here, i would also like to see Sam Harris who actually is using neuroscience to further the cause. furthermore, while i think Michio Kaku is a pretty cool dude, i wasn't aware he was actively part of the movement. someone like Lawrence Krauss seems more suitable.

[–]stillragin 2 points3 points ago

it has Penn Teller... At least have Madame Curie with glowing green eyes and an x-ray.

[–]brainburger 1 point2 points ago

He's called Penn Jillette actually, and he is a vocal spokesman for atheism. Raymond Teller doesn't talk much, of course :)

[–]stillragin 0 points1 point ago

Haha I know him pretty well- I just get name flub moments when it comes to celebrities- especially teams. His philosophical work for science for the masses is great though =)

[–]NazzerDawk 0 points1 point ago

No, it's got Penn and Bill Nye.

[–]stillragin 1 point2 points ago

Zing. But I guess we need apostolic for science on the TV just as much as religion does. Amen brother, heliumlujah. Yonder Selenium blow the trumpets and the particles wave their banners. Onward battle with sodium and H20.

[–]sweet_chick283 3 points4 points ago

Definitely!!!! One of the things I really don't like about some of the mainstream religions is the lack of equal participation for women - and we have such amazing female scientists as Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin, Virginia Apgar... - why wouldn't they be up there?

[–]Liokae 4 points5 points ago

It's not so much a failing of "the movement" specifically, as just a reflection that "the movement" isn't as far above the rest of humanity as its members like to pretend. There's plenty of women that have been/are now extremely important, and even influential; they just never get mentioned, because obviously women aren't as important as t3h menz.

To be more constructive though, here, have a list:

http://www.blaghag.com/2010/01/large-list-of-awesome-female-atheists.html

And that's just the ones that are alive today.

[–]rimcrimp -1 points0 points ago

I'd be quite pleased if the worst thing that ever happens regarding the treatment of women as a result of atheism is that an artist forgot to put a women in a painting.

[–]unlucky_cat 0 points1 point ago

At lease we haven't had to worry about Sea Otters, yet. http://i.imgur.com/3eLen.jpg

[–]brainburger -1 points0 points ago

There is the whole Skepchick community too. Thanks for the list.

[–]dizavin 0 points1 point ago

The Atheist Experience's Jen could very well be included, seeing as she hosts a "debate an atheist" verbal cage-fight every week and I've never seen her come close to losing, but also still insists on being respectful and courteous to her callers.

[–]analogkid01[!] 0 points1 point ago

Gender is irrelevant.

[–]brainburger 0 points1 point ago

Tell that to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

[–]analogkid01[!] 2 points3 points ago

I'd tell it to the people she is rightly critical of - they're the ones who seem to view the world through that lens.

Edit: by "that" I mean the perspective that gender has any meaning beyond reproductive function.

[–]brainburger 1 point2 points ago

A salient point, ably made.

[–]Aza-Sothoth 0 points1 point ago

Society disagrees.

[–]analogkid01[!] 0 points1 point ago

You and I are society. What do you think - does gender have any viable meaning aside from reproductive function and a handful of medical issues?

[–]Aza-Sothoth 0 points1 point ago

Society is made up of more than 2 people. I do agree with your point about gender, but that doesn't mean the majority of society does.

[–]Yasuchika 0 points1 point ago

It's just a drawing from some guy who went ahead and drew the people he looked up to. It in no way represents atheism as a whole, other people just decided to hijack it for that.

[–]brainburger 0 points1 point ago

If Google is to be believed, then the title of the picture is 'The Heroes of Atheism'.

That title might have been attributed to it later, but what is your source for saying what the artist intended?

[–]Yasuchika 2 points3 points ago

http://saejinoh.blogspot.com/2012/05/champions-of-reason.html

This is the original post, made by the artist who drew it. So no, google is not to be believed in this case.

[–]brainburger 1 point2 points ago

Excellent, thanks very much. Yes it's entitled Champions of Reason and the artist does not mention atheism anywhere.

This destroys the argument against having Neil Degrasse Tyson included.

[–]Ranoa02 0 points1 point ago

That's a bizarre criticism, though. I understand the author's point I suppose, if he wants to call the artist sexist, but this is a creative work. That it's "making the rounds" doesn't necessarily make it somehow part-and-parcel content of "the Heroes of Atheism". Perhaps the author ought to create a work of art to promote the women "Heroes of Atheism", if that's what he'd like to call it, and if he thinks such a thing is necessary for the movement. Bringing up the technicalities of whether Dr. Tyson or Darwin were "real Atheists" or not kind of strikes me as nitpicking, too. I don't think the work offers "Heroes of Atheism" as the author suggests, but rather champions of reason and evidence.

The genitalia of those champions depicted were almost, but not quite, the very last thing on my mind when I saw the work.

[–]brainburger 0 points1 point ago

Sagan also didn't use the word atheist to describe himself, preferring agnostic. (He was of course, an atheist in the contemporary sense of lacking a belief in any gods, just like NDT).

[–]rabblebabblejabble 0 points1 point ago

the majority of the criticism was retarded, you don't need to self identify with a group to be a 'hero' of that group.

[–]WelcomeMachine 0 points1 point ago

It's kinda like Prog Rock in the early 70's:

"You look out over the audience and it is nothing but a sea of men's faces. We never had female groupies." -Peter Sinfield, synthesizer, King Crimson

[–]stillragin -1 points0 points ago

cough cough sausage fest. I'm not mad, 70% of the scientists in Iran are women- they had one thing going for them- they had their social lives taken away, they were not allowed to be involved in any group activities, not allowed be involved in fashion or pop culture pursuits, not allowed to follow any political careers, really only involved passively in religion. They were put into class rooms and told to behave, poof generation of women scientists. I have mixed feeling about it.

[–]RoroMac -2 points-1 points ago

One of history's most prominent female atheists is Ayn Rand - I dunno that the poster is improved by including her, though.

[–]PSNDonutDude -1 points0 points ago

Honestly, while myself, I know of some women. My friends and family barely know half of these guys and the females are less known. For the love of non-existent god, I have talked to people who have no fucking clue who Charles Darwin is! Some random woman on there would in my opinion ruin the picture as the faces on here are all if not mostly well known and in that it shows that normal people, the people they love like Bill Nye and Adam Savage, and George Carlin are with us, not with the others.

[–]deadpigeon 11 points12 points ago

beautiful. please list the names for us, not all of them are obvious.

[–]Yasuchika 25 points26 points ago

Left to Right:

John Cleese, Penn Jillette, Bill Nye, Stephen Hawking, Friedrich Nietzsche, George Carlin, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Adam Savage (in the back), Michio Kaku.

[–]I_STAB_HIPSTER_FILTH 2 points3 points ago

I CAN NOT BELIEVE I MISSED JOHN CLEESE! Wow.

[–]championchap 1 point2 points ago

Needs more Sam Harris :(

[–]imperator285 10 points11 points ago

The only one that isn't readily apparent to me is the primary guy; I guess it's Hitchens but I'm not totally sure.

THe others (from left to right) are pretty clear:

Penn Jillette, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Stephen Hawking, Nietzsche and George Carlin, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens?, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, and Neil deGrasse Tyson

[–]calmateguey 2 points3 points ago

Bearded guy on the right could also be Daniel Dennet or James Randy.

[–]My_ducks_sick 1 point2 points ago

Why not both?

[–]Turborooz 11 points12 points ago

Oooo.....I thought the guy with the beard was God.....

[–]TheGrogsMachine 13 points14 points ago

you mislead people with your jokes..

[–]IDemandPerfection 1 point2 points ago

I thought the bearded dude was James Randi for some reason. But you're probably right. Darwin's beard is longer than Randi's and matches up with the picture better.

[–]monesy 0 points1 point ago

I'm going with Dan Dennett on this one.

[–]rabblebabblejabble 1 point2 points ago

how are you not noticing the old timey scarf hes wearing?! clearly darwin =D

[–]monesy 1 point2 points ago

Ah! Touche!

[–]brainburger 0 points1 point ago

One blog lists the guy at the back on the left as John Cleese, but I am not convinced. Any other suggestion?

[–]sorgenvind -2 points-1 points ago

It's not clear AT ALL who most of these guys are. I can guess who they are but more work needs to be done on this image to make the likenesses better. It's strange because the artist is very talented. But these likenesses are just not good enough.

[–]ABeetle -1 points0 points ago

The faces are stylized, fool. They're tweaked a bit to look more like action heroes.

[–]kent_eh 2 points3 points ago

Hawking looks like he's ready to kick some serious ass. (with a remote controlled robot foot, of course)

[–]kfijatass 0 points1 point ago

Perhaps that was intentional, to just show a bunch of free thinkers and not see names and faces but just what they represent.

[–]sorgenvind 1 point2 points ago

Nah. He tried pretty damn hard and worked hard on this image but came up short on the likenesses.

[–]snickles 2 points3 points ago

I think most of the likenesses are pretty good but I gotta say, I thought that Bill Nye was Christian Bale. "Oooo I didn't know Bruce Wayne is an atheist!"

[–]sorgenvind 1 point2 points ago

I think they border on terrible. If they weren't all together I don't think I would recognize any of them except Sagan.

[–]Trent1492 7 points8 points ago

Sausage Festival

[–]Battlesheep 15 points16 points ago

SO BRAVE!

[–]JerkingCircles 4 points5 points ago

"Every age has its own divine type of naivete, for the discovery of which other ages may envy it: and how much naivete—adorable, childlike, and boundlessly foolish naivete is involved in this belief of the scholar in his superiority, in the good conscience of his tolerance, in the unsuspecting, simple certainty with which his instinct treats the religious man as a lower and less valuable type, beyond, before, and ABOVE which he himself has developed—he, the little arrogant dwarf and mob-man, the sedulously alert, head-and-hand drudge of "ideas," of "modern ideas"!"

-Nietzsche

[–]transeunte 0 points1 point ago

OUCH

[–]FuzzyKitenz 2 points3 points ago

I love this picture, but did anyone else notice there are no girls? I know that one wouldn't be able to get a girl from Darwin's time, but you would think we could get one modern female warrior of reason.

[–]Toomuchcookies 2 points3 points ago

SAUSAGE FEST!!

[–]DestructoPants 4 points5 points ago

Sagan is summoning up the powers of the chronic. That's not just mist rising up from the bottom of the picture.

[–]Schugg 3 points4 points ago

Here is the artist's page: http://saejinoh.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/champions-of-reason.html

and the names listed as they are by the artist on his pages comments:

From left: John Cleese, Penn Jillette, Bill Nye, Stephen Hawking, (above) Frederick Nietzsche, (below) George Carlin, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Adam Savage, Michio Kaku

[–]PantsMckenzie 4 points5 points ago

Nauseating picture. Is that the point?

[–]Secularsam 1 point2 points ago

Thought Carlin was PZ, also must second the surprise lack of Sam Harris.

[–]ScottFree37 0 points1 point ago

Actually yeah. Sam Harris is the only one of your saints I find palatable.

[–]Iamgoingtooffendyou 1 point2 points ago

Atheist worship science?!?

[–]brainburger 1 point2 points ago

Why is NDT balling his fists up like that?

[–]notatheist 1 point2 points ago

I always think Hitchens looks like Tony Soprano in the is picture.

[–]Aerithia1 1 point2 points ago

It's interesting that Nietzsche wasn't himself an atheist. He just kind of said that God was irrelevant.

I interpreted him as a Deist.

[–]supernova1331 2 points3 points ago

Again, no women.

[–]MrCynicalMan 1 point2 points ago

My first thought too, science is still very much an old boys club. It seems unless a female scientist has a ponytail and glasses she can respectively shake out and take off, no one cares

[–]dizavin 0 points1 point ago

no... that's just science and atheism's fanboys who think that.

Science is about results, discovery and insight. Scientific discovery doesn't give a shit if you've got a penis or not. there are many women who thrive in this environment.

the thing that keeps their numbers low is the fact that a lot of women don't seem to give a shit about science. THAT is the problem.

for what it's worth, I thought Jen Peeples would be deserving in this painting. she was an aerospace engineer, a test pilot, served in the military and was a "foxhole atheist" and hosts a weekly call-in debate show (that isn't moderated, so it's more like a call-in cage-match show) about atheism and hasn't, as far as I know, lost a single debate yet.

in all honesty? she is more qualified to be on that painting than Penn Jillette is.

[–]MrCynicalMan 0 points1 point ago

And that shows, sheltering suburban mom became a popular meme for a reason. If we, men included, don’t start holding female scientists and atheists in the same light as male ones, then nothing is going to change.

[–]deviantmoomba 0 points1 point ago

I know! Where's Rachel Carson dammit!

[–]LSUenigma 1 point2 points ago

This is awesome!! LOL I can name some: from left to right: ?, Penn Jillette, Bill Nye, Stephen Hawking, ?, George Carlin, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Adam Savage, and ?

[–]wezdog1 1 point2 points ago

Dr Michio Kaku?

[–]brainburger 0 points1 point ago

Far left seems to be John Cleese.

[–]lordtyp0 0 points1 point ago

I am kind of glad PZ isn't in it. Im getting to where I can't stand that guy.

[–]dizavin 1 point2 points ago

hrm.

no women.

lame.

[–]Jiles-Mcfrafon 1 point2 points ago

This is really fucking lame.

[–]Mungo9OOO 0 points1 point ago

Who is the guy on the very far left, with the grey mustache? (looks like Revolver Ocelot)

[–]misteranthrope 0 points1 point ago

Ok, here's my stab at it, from L to R:

Vonnegut(?), Penn Jilette, Bill Nye, Stephen Hawking, Neitzsche, George Carlin, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Adam Savage, Julian Assange(?)

[–]kfijatass 0 points1 point ago

Awesome! So making this my background as well. I Just want to know the names of the two in the background now, anyone can help out? The one left to Penn Jillete and the one on the right of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Adam Savage(?)

[–]Jakshad 0 points1 point ago

Just did a factory reset, and needed a new background, THANKS A WHOLE BUNCH BRO.

[–]Galactus177 0 points1 point ago

Adventures in Atheism.

[–]kickulus 0 points1 point ago

Is that nicolas cage in the middle red?

[–]mechanate 0 points1 point ago

All that rain is going to wreck their suits.

[–]SumoMoses 0 points1 point ago

A well done graphic for sure, but my only problem with this is that there's no prioritization of contribution.

George Carlin is front and center, but Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris are nowhere to be found?

[–]gilgagoogyta 0 points1 point ago

Is that a double helix left set of clouds?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]kumochisonan 1 point2 points ago

Sadly, most people don't know what they look like, therefore the visual wouldn't be as striking. "Oh look, it's a bunch of old dudes I don't recognise."

[–]brainburger 0 points1 point ago

Just think how silly it would be to make a similar christian desktop background featuring Jesus, Moses, St. Paul, Augustine, Francis of Assisi... with vocal christian celebrities Mel Gibson and the Jonas Brothers among them.

In European Christian art, it is actually quite a common thing for the patrons of a church or artist to be included in pictures, alongside biblical or (then) historical characters. Usually they will be in the crowd, worshiping Jesus or Mary, or some similar role.

Penn Jillette has written at least one book about atheism, and has spoken about it often and in detail, both in interviews and in his TV Bullshit!.

I don't think Hawkins has ever said specifically that he is an atheist, though he has said that it is not necessary to invoke a God to explain creation.

You didn't mention John Cleese, at the back-left, co-writer of The Life of Brian.

As this seems likely just to be a personal favorites list, rather than a systematic attempt to compile a list of important atheists, it seems fine to me, though Adam Savage seems a bit out of place in that company.

[–]0v0Nevermore 0 points1 point ago

Where's Iron Man?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

This is a really cool photo. Very "comic-y". Thought: Why are there no prominent female atheists/nonbelievers?

[–]WarWren 0 points1 point ago

Richard Dawkins has said that he is an Agnostic Atheist because he cannot disprove God. He doubts a God but does not claim he doesn't exist. However, all Agnostics are Atheists regardless . a·the·ism Noun /ˈāTHēˌizəm/ Disbelief in the existence of God or gods. If you don't believe in a God or gods you are an atheist, what makes you an agnostic is if you don't care or don't know.

[–]hitch44 0 points1 point ago

There is no reason to put a woman in this picture for the sake of it. The women deserve a separate picture with full honors. Put Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the front! Hitchens himself admitted in Hitch 22 that Ayaan was a very strong, brave woman that he deeply respected and admired.

Artists of Reddit, make a picture tribute to women atheists/rationalists happen!

[–]JonahFrank 0 points1 point ago

if only Nietzsche wasn't in there it would be consistent.

[–]loganparker420 0 points1 point ago

Do you care if I use this as well @lemonfreedom? It's great.

[–]GreenAlbatross 0 points1 point ago

Why are there no women in this picture?

[–]Plastastic 0 points1 point ago

What's Neil deGrasse Tyson doing there?

[–]manuel_robot_cleaner 0 points1 point ago

Automatically downloaded when I saw Carlin.

[–]CelticLegend94 0 points1 point ago

So, after reading most of the comments, I can assume it's impossible to line up free thinkers and admire them because religious people do the same thing to their imaginary friends?

[–]Aza-Sothoth 0 points1 point ago

free thinkers

Can we atheists think of a more pretentious thing to call ourselves? Why not scientists, masters of logic and reason.

[–]Craftable64 0 points1 point ago

Does any one have know about a version of this where all of them are labeled? If you do, please comment a link. Thanks in advance.

[–]Mercifool 0 points1 point ago

It took me some time to determine the man in front was Hitchens, I would have recognized instantly if he were holding a glass of johnnie walker black.

[–]Djandyt 0 points1 point ago

way better than mcnaughtons art...

[–]Rhaegar_ii 0 points1 point ago

See if you can name them all!

[–]Mugglebones 0 points1 point ago

Cool artwork.

[–]vereysuper 0 points1 point ago

That has been my desktop background for about a month and a half

[–]thecrownprince 0 points1 point ago

George Carlin looks like a boss.

[–]Mungo9OOO 0 points1 point ago

Sadly missing Sam Harris, Bill Gates and Richard Feynman (plus a few others); but brilliant none the less.

Bravo. Well Done.

[–]brainburger 7 points8 points ago

I'd like to see Asimov and Douglas Adams on there, but any list would be incomplete.

[–]felipec 6 points7 points ago

Bill Gates? I have never seen Bill Gates advance the atheism movement.

[–]imperator285 0 points1 point ago

And now it's mine as well. Thanks.

[–]CreativeDinosaur 0 points1 point ago

This is an awesome wallpaper. Happy Hitchens got the center spot, being the most badass. But got to give credit where credit is due, where did you find this fine piece of art?

[–]elcd 0 points1 point ago

Where's Bill Hicks?

[–]ScottFree37 -1 points0 points ago

Bill hicks clearly believed in a god of sorts.

[–]elcd 0 points1 point ago

He was spiritual. There's a difference. In fact, he quite openly stated that he believed in only one true god, 'love', and that 'it' existed within all of us. My understanding was that he simply believed in peaceful coexistence.

That and the fact he consistently gave organised religion heaps of shit.

[–]ScottFree37 -1 points0 points ago

Giving organised religion shit and being an atheist aren't intrinsically linked. Among other things hicks said this

“I believe that God left certain drugs growing naturally upon our planet to help speed up and facilitate our evolution. OK, not the most popular idea ever expressed”

If you really analyse the philisophical sections of his routine it reasonable to say he believed in a god of sorts, but certainly did not agree with any organised religion.

[–]elcd 0 points1 point ago

So you see a strict division between atheism and ANY theism form of spirituality? As in they are mutually exclusive?

My analysis is that he appealed to the beliefs of his time (late 80s, early 90s... people weren't nearly as open to Atheism as they are now) to get his message across, and that he was more spiritual than invested in a deity.

Here's the kicker, you can be atheist, but still spiritual.

[–]ScottFree37 -1 points0 points ago

I do. As I understand it Atheism is the lack of belief in ANY gods (a definition that is generally accepted and perpetuated by the quote "I believe in one less god than you"). Once you believe in any form of god, you can no longer be classed as an atheist.

[–]elcd 0 points1 point ago

People like you, make me hate atheists. I'm a non-spiritual, atheist, but I respect that some people whilst not believing in a HIGHER BEING (deity), can still believe in other planes of existence, reincarnation, et.al.

We can argue against the probability of (a) god(s), but post-death is still very shakey, and when some of the best evidence for 'dead-being-dead' are people unconscious, high as fuck on drugs dying on operating tables the evidence gets a little shakey. So in my opinion there is nothing wrong with being a spiritual atheist.

Further to my first point, please, tell me who are you to tell someone how they should and should not believe? You're almost as devout in the nobility/righteousness of your atheistic (lack of) beliefs as some fundamentalist religious nuts. In fact, it's the same shit different bucket a lot of the time. I think there's all a logical fallacy there... 'no true Scotsman...'?

[–]ScottFree37 -1 points0 points ago

I'm actually not an atheist. And all I asked for was evidence that supports your theory that Bill Hicks believed in no form of god

[–]dizavin 0 points1 point ago

I TOO INSIST THAT I KNOW WHAT ANOTHER HUMAN I DID NOT KNOW PERSONALLY THOUGHT ABOUT RELIGION AND WILL GET MY PANTIES IN A KNOT ABOUT IT, WHEN SOMEONE ELSE CLAIMS OTHERWISE.

THIS IS SUCH A GREAT COMMUNITY, YOU GUISE!!!!

[–]ScottFree37 -1 points0 points ago

I'm not sure who you're mocking here

[–]ScottFree37 -1 points0 points ago

Evidence?

[–]NovaNexu -1 points0 points ago

HOLY SHIT WHERE DID YOU GET THIS It's mine now too :D thanks

[–]Rogan-Josh 0 points1 point ago

Agreed, where did you get this from? I'd like to give my compliments to the artist.

[–]VAPossum -1 points0 points ago

ATHEISTS ASSEMBLE!

[–]eriktheguy -1 points0 points ago

Background singular? Am I the only one that uses the slideshow feature in W7?

[–]BrainTroubles -1 points0 points ago

Why is Dane Cook the most fore front person?...

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

Loved it, it's now mine too!

[–]Afro-Alchemist -1 points0 points ago

The Logic Rise.

[–]reidhasguitar -1 points0 points ago

That looks like some sort of cool superhero team.

[–]mokkush -1 points0 points ago

So happy to see Carlin at the forefront. He opened so many eyes through his comedy.

[–]hazelquarrier_couch -3 points-2 points ago

Hi, devil's advocate here! If you make idols out of atheists, how is that different than worshiping a higher power?

[–]velvetabyss 0 points1 point ago

These people exist(ed).

We don't deny theism because it tell people to like something grand, we deny it because it's nonsense.

[–]hazelquarrier_couch 0 points1 point ago

Many saints actually existed (some didn't); It would be considered worship to make a statue to one of them and venerate it. I don't see a difference between that and putting important atheists on a computer screen depicted in an idealized way.

[–]velvetabyss 1 point2 points ago

The "saints" are claimed to have performed magical feats. The atheists have not.

You're equivocating by trying to say that venerating lies and venerating truth are equal because they are both veneration. It's silly.

[–]hazelquarrier_couch 0 points1 point ago

You're the one that has said venerating lies and venerating truth are equal. I'm merely pointing out that when you put someone on a pedestal, it's worship.

[–]lordtyp0 0 points1 point ago

Does that extend to movie, band, and video game posters? How about works of art? In context of this thread mind you. It looks like it's just a poster on par with a comic book...

[–]velvetabyss 0 points1 point ago

You're the one that has said venerating lies and venerating truth are equal. I'm merely pointing out that when you put someone on a pedestal, it's worship.

You just said the same thing, only using different words.

You are equating veneration (you called it "worship")! And "worship" is further bullshit equivocation. Catholics literally worship saints as in they pray to them and ask them for help, and bow down to them. Atheists do none of these things to prominent atheists (like the ones depicted). The only "worship" going on is of the veneration type. I.e., we think they are great and honor them, even revere them, but we absolutely DO NOT worship them in that way.

You are an equivocating weasel.

[–]kumochisonan -1 points0 points ago

It would be considered worship by you. We are not bound by any such doctrinal restriction. Also, I don't think worship is the right word, as no unconditional veneration of their person, nor request for intercession is taking place here. I'm sure anyone who actually recognises the people in the image are acutely aware of their many human failings. We are all human after all.

[–]hazelquarrier_couch 1 point2 points ago

Point taken, and thank you for that. In my view, it's worship.

[–]dizavin 0 points1 point ago

idolizing and worshipping are different.

if you think it's the same, we'd love to see your evidence.

[–]Sit-Down_Comedian -2 points-1 points ago

In sorry all you alcoholics, Hitch does not go before Sagan...

[–]dizavin 0 points1 point ago

lol, you think hitch is a beacon of alcoholics.

point and laugh at sit down comedian

[–]Zealex -2 points-1 points ago

Atheist dream team xD

[–]Wacocaine -2 points-1 points ago

No Bill Maher?

[–]monesy 2 points3 points ago

He was at an anti-vaxxer rally and couldn't make it.

[–]Aza-Sothoth 0 points1 point ago

And yet George "Conspiracy Theorist" Carlin and Penn "Global warming don't real" Jillette are there.

[–]monesy 0 points1 point ago

I guess they had their priorities straight and showed up. toot toot.

[–]dizavin 0 points1 point ago

I love it when people say things are "don't real".

it makes me feel better about going to college.

[–]Aza-Sothoth 0 points1 point ago

Well the important thing is that you found a way to feel superior.

[–]kds405 -2 points-1 points ago

This is so disgusting to me. These men just want to do their jobs and educate (well, besides the entertainers). You people can't be mature enough to learn from them without the hero worship.

[–]MrCynicalMan 0 points1 point ago

There is a difference between admiring someone and worshipping them

[–]ScottFree37 0 points1 point ago

direct transference. They don't want to worship god but have been conditioned with a need to worship something. It's dangerous because they view themselves as free thinkers

[–]TheDragonsBalls -3 points-2 points ago

Oh my "God"! Stealing this

load more comments (1 reply)

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

    REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

    π Rendered by PID 20327 on app-61 running 6bc9a40.