The Darwin Fish

[DrDNA]

I'm actually one those devout Evangelical Christians that your Christianity-hating, secular, left wing, pinko commie professors warned you about, and I think it is amusing....even cute.

 

Mimicky is after all just a form of flattery.

 

PS: Send $5 dollars to me at The Church of The Scared Heart of The Bleeding Jesus located in Los Angeles California and all your dreams will come true.

[Mr Skeptic]

Hope none of you are offended by this one then

 

 

Cheers!

[Dak]

meh. the darwin fish has legs, it could out-maneuveur the jesus fish

 

---

 

kinda like swansont and sysiphus said: the intent seems mainly to mock the kinda christian who wants creationism taught in the science classroom.

 

no doubt a few atheists wear it as a general '**** you christianity' statement, but i still don't see why so many people are so offended? i mean, why not just take it as a joke in somewhat poor taste and shrug it off?

 

for christians such as YT (i.e., who don't fall under the category of 'christians who feel that their faith overrides science, and they have to forse everyone else to be taught this', and who should know that the 'religion-hating atheists' are a small minority) i don't see why it's so offensive?

[YT2095]

it doesn`t offend me personally it`s not a symbol I use, in fact I don`t really use Any religious symbols.

 

I find it disappointing that Deliberate mockery that will offend some is being used for just that purpose.

it wouldn`t matter What religion or group of people it was against.

[JohnB]

The point is obviously mockery, but it's mockery of a very particular group of people. Not "Christians," but "Christians who pretend to be persecuted for their beliefs (which is offensive to those who actually are) AND who feel they have to make war on science to prove their faith."

While this is true, it is only half the story as the symbol mocked applies to most christians.

 

Think of it this way, there's someone in a crowd that you want to "take out". The sensible thing is to use a rifle and only hit the target, but the Darwin fish is the equivilent of using a shotgun. Sure you'll mostly hurt the target but you'll get a lot of injured people around him.

 

Fundamentalists are a subset of the general group called Christians just as the supporters of the POTUS are a subset of the general group called "Americans". If I disagreed with the policy of the POTUS it would be neither desirable or logical to therefore insult all Americans on the grounds that "Hey, I was only talking about the supporters of the Prez."

 

The use of such a scattergun tactic is very poor form and only shows an inability to accurately home in on your target. More to the point it demonstrates that your opponent is superior to you. The fundies can quite accurately target the subset "Scientists" without insulting half the population to do it, however their opponents show an amazing lack of skill in responding in kind.

 

As to the Darwin fish itself, I find it rather cute however I don't feel the burning need to insult the beliefs of others to make myself feel superior.

[Dak]

I find it disappointing that Deliberate mockery that will offend some is being used for just that purpose.

 

While this is true, it is only half the story as the symbol mocked applies to most christians.

 

Think of it this way, there's someone in a crowd that you want to "take out". The sensible thing is to use a rifle and only hit the target, but the Darwin fish is the equivilent of using a shotgun. Sure you'll mostly hurt the target but you'll get a lot of injured people around him.

 

as i see it tho, the above would apply to, say, why you shouldn't call an individual black person a nigger, because it'll offend all/most black people.

 

however, the kind of people who use the word nigger are almost without exception racists, who do think lowly of all black people. even if that's not the case in a particular instance, it's what'll be (justifiedly) assumed to be the case.

 

but when it comes to the jesus fish, i think it's pretty obvious that *most* people using it are just aiming it at fundies. so i don't really see why most christians can't assume that, and assume that it's (in most cases) not mocking christianity as a whole, just extremist christianity.

 

in fact, i'd assume that the thinking in most cases was 'if they're not fundies, they'll be chilled and not get offended'.

[ydoaPs]

I'm sorry. I seem to have missed where the motives of the Christian borrowing and the Darwin Fish creator's borrowing were established.

[JohnB]

however, the kind of people who use the word nigger are almost without exception racists, who do think lowly of all black people.

And devout atheists don't think lowly of all religious people? I would venture that the evidence suggests otherwise.

[Dak]

i said most. most people who use the word 'nigger' are racists, so it makes sence to assume that anyone using the word 'nigger' is a racist.

 

most atheists aren't anti-religion, just a few, so why assume someone with an atheistic symbol is being maliciously offensive towards religion? why not assume that they're maybe just being offensive towards fundies, which afaict *is* an attitude that's prevalent amongst american atheists?

 

I'm sorry. I seem to have missed where the motives of the Christian borrowing and the Darwin Fish creator's borrowing were established.

 

if the christians can be said to have stolen the fishy symbol, then I'd assume it'd be for the same reason as stealing christmas trees etc, vis to incorporate the heathen's practices and symbology into christianity to aid in their conversion, which is a relatively well established historical fact. tho it's not exactly a complex symbol so could just be coincidence, and is most likely in refference to the feeding of the 5K (i believe the symbol means 'faith')

 

the darwin fish is quite obviously in mockery of the jesus fish, the only question being who and what, exactly, is being mocked, and why.

 

why, what do you think the motives were?

[ydoaPs]

if the christians can be said to have stolen the fishy symbol, then I'd assume it'd be for the same reason as stealing christmas trees etc, vis to incorporate the heathen's practices and symbology into christianity to aid in their conversion, which is a relatively well established historical fact. tho it's not exactly a complex symbol so could just be coincidence, and is most likely in refference to the feeding of the 5K (i believe the symbol means 'faith')

 

the darwin fish is quite obviously in mockery of the jesus fish, the only question being who and what, exactly, is being mocked, and why.

How do you know they didn't have the same motives?

 

why, what do you think the motives were?

I don't know what the motives are. That is honest. What isn't honest, however, is assuming malicious intent for one borrowing of the symbol but not of another.

[Severian]

but when it comes to the jesus fish, i think it's pretty obvious that *most* people using it are just aiming it at fundies. so i don't really see why most christians can't assume that, and assume that it's (in most cases) not mocking christianity as a whole, just extremist christianity.

 

Why is that 'obvious'? (I don't even think it is true.) The 'Jesus fish' isn't a fundamentalist symbol. It is a general Christain symbol for people who want to display their faith. So the Darwin-fish is not just mocking fundamentalists - it is mocking all christians who are happy to publicly declare their faith.

 

in fact, i'd assume that the thinking in most cases was 'if they're not fundies, they'll be chilled and not get offended'.

 

Why do you have to be a fundamentalist to be offended? If you insult someone you should not be surprised if they are offended, and you should not feel free to maliciously insult people just because you think they are big enough to take it on the chin.

 

I happen to remember being criticised on this site for complaining about your dreadful spelling. Should I feel free to insult you as much as I like because you will "be chilled and not get offended"?

[ydoaPs]

The 'Jesus fish' isn't a fundamentalist symbol.

 

It's a pagan one.

[gcol]

What an enlightening thread! I thought that fishy squiggle on car bumpers was a warning, you know, "Keep your distance, dangerous piscene on board"

 

But if anyone wants to take offence, how about me, a citizen of the British Isles, forced to kow-tow, kneel, stand, and generally show allegiance to a national flag composed entirely of various crosses in amusing arrangements.

 

As a devout Agnostic, I protest most strongly at being constantly insulted by this symbol of the antithesis of all I hold logically self-evident.

 

So stick your fish where the sun don't shine, it just smells like old fertiliser.

[Dak]

Why is that 'obvious'? (I don't even think it is true.) The 'Jesus fish' isn't a fundamentalist symbol. It is a general Christain symbol for people who want to display their faith. So the Darwin-fish is not just mocking fundamentalists - it is mocking all christians who are happy to publicly declare their faith.

 

are you honestly saying that the majority of atheists who use the symbol are doing so to piss off the majority of christians? i think not.

 

If you assume that the intent is bad, then obviously it'll seem bad. but, i don't think that the majority of atheists, at least where i come from, have anything against christians, so i'd be inclined to grant the benifit of the doubt (tho admitedly it may be different in america, or even scotland)

 

I happen to remember being criticised on this site for complaining about your dreadful spelling. Should I feel free to insult you as much as I like because you will "be chilled and not get offended"?

 

not by me, and yes (as long as you don't actually mean to offend me). which, iirc, was what you did anyway. and i was chilled, and didn't get offended, because i assumed you were taking the piss in a non-malicious way.

 

anywai, my spelling's inproved a lot sins then

[JohnB]

I protest most strongly at being constantly insulted by this symbol of the antithesis of all I hold logically self-evident.

What, the islands generally known as "Great Britain" don't consist of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland? I need a new atlas.

are you honestly saying that the majority of atheists who use the symbol are doing so to piss off the majority of christians? i think not.

I think they don't care, which is worse. To not care whether you insult others or not is stating that their opinions and feelings don't matter at all. That is derogatory and insulting.

[doG]

So what do you feel about the Darwin fish?

 

IMO it's an antagonist symbol. Based on our knowledge, or lack thereof, the whole "creationism vs evolution" debate is meaningless. Creationism is about origins of life, evolution is not. They are not mutually exclusive ideals. There is a vast quantity of evidence supporting evolution as a mechanism for adaptation and speciation so there shouldn't be any debate as to whether or not evolution occurs. There is zero evidence supporting creationism as a model for mutation, adaption and speciation so there's nothing to debate about these.

 

The real competitors to creationism are abiogenesis, panspermia/transpermia and other as yet unconceived ideas. Scientists should not continue to steer the debate towards evolution with bait like the Darwin Fish.

[swansont]

There is zero evidence supporting creationism as a model for mutation, adaption and speciation so there's nothing to debate about these.

 

And yet this doesn't seem to stop the "but it's only a theory" crowd. If I want to mock them, I will. They've mocked science, and some of them have mocked me.

 

(incidentally, mock 1 is the speed of sarcasm)

[gcol]

What, the islands generally known as "Great Britain" don't consist of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland? I need a new atlas.

 

G'day, mate, Don't you have one of those fancy cross things on your flag, too?

 

And as for those seven-pointed stars, see this :http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/blstarsymbols.htm

 

The seven point star is apparently a pagan/wiccan symbol. So who pinched whose star, then?

 

There is a lot of interesting info about symbols there, plenty of scope for mischief-making>

 

How about this (from the above site), re the fish, or "vessica"

 

"In Pagan times, this glyph was associated with the Goddess Venus, and represented female genitalia. Early depictions of Christ depict him as an infant within the vesica (usually called a mandorla, meaning 'almond shaped.'), which represented the womb of Mary (and often, the coming together of heaven and earth in the body of jesus- part man, part god). As such, it is also a doorway or portal between worlds, and symbolizes the intersection between the heaven and the material plane. The shape of arches in gothic architecture is based on the vesica."

[iNow]

Why is that 'obvious'? (I don't even think it is true.) The 'Jesus fish' isn't a fundamentalist symbol. It is a general Christain symbol for people who want to display their faith. So the Darwin-fish is not just mocking fundamentalists - it is mocking all christians who are happy to publicly declare their faith.

It's called free speech. If you can make the choice to publicly declare your faith then I can make the choice to publicly mock it. Quit with the double standards in the name of "faith is too precious to be criticized."

 

If you have the freedom to display a symbol, then so do I. The problem is how quickly the sensitive religious folks take everything as a personal insult. There are many times when I say something about the concept of religion and someone acts as if I've attacked them directly.

 

To swansont's point, it's not as if every religious person is exactly leading by example on this one.

[Phi for All]

What isn't honest, however, is assuming malicious intent for one borrowing of the symbol but not of another.

Now your changing the goalposts, widening them to include "malicious intent". You claimed there was no difference between the early Christian church "borrowing" an earlier symbol and the Darwin fish folks "borrowing" the same symbol. I pointed out that I know of no evidence that the early Christians "borrowed" the symbol in order to twit the former users. In fact, the evidence shows they were trying to establish themselves by using symbols already in use.

 

How is your position honest and mine not? As I said, intent seems to be the key here.

[Severian]

It's called free speech. If you can make the choice to publicly declare your faith then I can make the choice to publicly mock it. Quit with the double standards in the name of "faith is too precious to be criticized."

 

What does that have to do with it? I never suggested making it a crime to display the Darwin-fish. The OP explicitly asked if it was offensive, and I gave my opinion.

 

Are you suggesting that my opinion is 'wrong'? That somehow I should not be (or not be permitted to be) offended? Or are you just saying that you want to restrict my freedom to express my opinion?

 

It is all very well to protect free speech. I would die to protect the right of anyone to insult me. But that doesn't mean that I would think highly of the person doing the insulting. I would have a very low opinion of someone who would make jokes about the WWII gas chambers for example, but I would defend their right to make the jokes if it was threatened (though this would be dependent on the circumstances of course).

 

The problem is how quickly the sensitive religious folks take everything as a personal insult. There are many times when I say something about the concept of religion and someone acts as if I've attacked them directly.

 

No, the problem is that you are so quick to make crass generalisations and assumptions about people based apon your arbitrary labeling.

[ydoaPs]

Now your changing the goalposts, widening them to include "malicious intent".

No, the "malicious intent" was referring to the assumption of mockery as the motive.

 

I pointed out that I know of no evidence that the early Christians "borrowed" the symbol in order to twit the former users.

And where's the evidence that the Darwin Fish creator borrowed the symbol in order to "twit the former users"? Therein lies the point.

 

How is your position honest and mine not?

As I had previously stated, I assume nothing of the motives whereas most of you assume malicious intent on one party and innocence on the other.

 

 

No, the problem is that you are so quick to make crass generalisations and assumptions about people based apon your arbitrary labeling.

 

Which, from what I can tell, is what you did with respect to the OP.

[iNow]

No, the problem is that you are so quick to make crass generalisations and assumptions about people based apon your arbitrary labeling.

 

Which, from what I can tell, is what you did with respect to the OP.

 

 

And also here:

 

But that doesn't mean that I would think highly of the person doing the insulting.

Just as I have a low opinion of religion in general, and belief in unicorns. Why do you suggest our positions are so different? To YDOP's point, you're doing the same damned thing yourself which you're so vigorously critizing others for doing.

 

This thread is almost ridiculous. It's like someone was asking about a symbol of a screwdriver and how it mocks the hammer, and someone who happens to believe in Thor came in and started screaming about how pathetic this person is for having their screwdriver symbol.

[swansont]

This thread is almost ridiculous. It's like someone was asking about a symbol of a screwdriver and how it mocks the hammer, and someone who happens to believe in Thor came in and started screaming about how pathetic this person is for having their screwdriver symbol.

 

Depends. Are we talking about a clawdian, ballpeener or a sledgorian?

 

 

Satire always mocks somebody and most humor does, so someone will invariably be offended. But a right to free speech can't really coexist with a right not to be offended. And sometimes, I think, being offended just means you're taking things too seriously.

[Severian]

Just as I have a low opinion of religion in general, and belief in unicorns. Why do you suggest our positions are so different? To YDOP's point, you're doing the same damned thing yourself which you're so vigorously critizing others for doing.

 

You seem to be clutching at straws now. The OP asked if the Darwin-fish was offensive, and I said it was. I gave my opinion. You replied telling me to "Quit with the double standards in the name of "faith is too precious to be criticized." ", and I pointed out that the right to free-speech does not magically remove my right to be offended by what you say.

 

Which bit are you disagreeing with? I have defended your right to criticise my religion, so it can't be that. I have even defended your right to be offensive. But I reserve the right to declare your opinions as offensive, or indeed, to hold any opinion about you I like. And in my opinion, the Darwin-fish is offensive (though only mildly so) and those who display it are rather pathetic. [Feel free to be offended by that opinion.]

 

To YDOP's point...

 

Since I have him on ignore, I don't really care about his point.