Subscribe to Irregular Times via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 846 other subscribers

Invisible Pink Unicorn: Should Atheism Have a Symbol?

Invisible Pink Unicorn Black and White IconThe Invisible Pink Unicorn: it’s not pink, it’s not invisible, and it looks more like a hummingbird to me. Is the invisibility, the lack of pinkness, and the impossibility of a pink invisible thing purposeful? The Invisible Pink Unicorn is both an icon meant to designate a lack of belief in any deity, and at the same time the symbol of a bogus, spoofy deity itself.

The whole thing resembles a Zen koan to me, but perhaps that is part of the intelligent design, too.

9 comments to Invisible Pink Unicorn: Should Atheism Have a Symbol?

  • Fruktata

    For me, this logo looks like nothing. It doesn’t look like anything more than a couple of squiggly eyebrows, maybe, and not even that, much. Lousy logo.

  • Genghis Khan

    looks like a two-dimensional Frito Bandito with a four- dimensional mustache

  • Jenny

    i think it’s beautiful and smart!

  • Carrie

    I think it is a way to unite atheists. One of the large draws to religion is the sense of community and that is something that atheists struggle with because there is not a common belief uniting people but a common lack of belief… Sometimes i wish I had a religion to have a community, but I just dont buy in to any of them. Still not sure about the IPU but it is a step in a uniting direction…

  • Juniper

    The atomic symbol that American Atheists use is not a compelling one – it’s literally militant, related to the whole nuclear weapons thing. I prefer an invisible pink unicorn.

  • hudson

    what about the Flying Spagetti Monster?

  • Carrie

    I like the flying spaghetti monster, the IPU is alright, some people use the symbol for the empty set (the zero with the slash through it). I just wish there was more unity among atheists but it could be because I am in the midwest and there are very few atheists out here, in fact it is super hard to find someone who is not Christian, i know a few Jewish persons but i am the religious minority by far…

  • Concerning the usual flying teapot, spaghetti monster and invisible unicorns analogies, I think it is important to distinguish between atheism ( I know beyond all reasonable doubt that those entities does not exist) and agnosticism ( I don’t know whether they exist or not).
    I am pretty sure none of those entities exist not only because of the absence of evidences (this by itself would only justify agnosticism) but also because there are incredibly strong reasons militating against their existence.
    Take for example the celestial teapot: teapots are products of an human mind, contrarily to biological systems, there are no conceivable natural pathways by which they could have evolved, and no human being has ever been at the surface or even in the vicinity of Mars (and even if some secrete mission has done that, it is extremely unlikely they would have brought one teapot with them and let it fall in the space) , therefore one can conclude with almost certainty that there is no teapot orbiting around Mars.

    Let us now consider other scenarios for which we have no evidence at all: somewhere in the multiverse, there is an intelligent species looking like bears, there exists a parasitic species capable of possessing their host’s brain like the Goaulds (Stargates) or hives (dark skies).
    I am “agnostic” but not atheist about these possibilities, because while there exist clearly no evidence, there is also nothing which speaks against that.
    Similarly, I am atheist about any kind of invisible animals or visible or invisible unicorns existing on the earth, but I am agnostic about the possibilities that such creature may live on an unknown planet of an unknown remote paralell universe.

    I therefore think that the principle (No evidences => non-existence) is deeply flawed, for affirming that something does not exist, we ought to provide reasons for not believing that.
    So, I believe that atheist have to give solid grounds for believing with almost certainty there exist no god(s). These may be the evidence of meaningless evils, the widespread religious confusion, the numerous examples of bad design in nature and so on and so forth.

    • David998998

      Hey, just letting you know – Atheism doesn’t claim that there are no gods. It’s simply a lack of belief in a god. If someone asks you whether there is a god and you answer anything other than ‘yes,’ including ‘I don’t know’ … you’re an atheist. Of course, atheism can be divided into strong atheism (I know there is no god) and weak atheism (I don’t believe there is a god). In other words, it’s completely possible to be an agnostic atheist. :)

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>