The People Have Spoken! (The Advocatus Atheist book cover winner)

Edward T. Babinski, Mike Doolittle (aka The A-Unicornist) and a hand full of other friends were critiquing my book cover designs over on Facebook as I posted them.

They all agreed that a personal cover that would signify atheism isn't just some cold and detached philosophical view but a personal and relatable ideology was in order. Atheists are people too, after all.

So, finally I made one using my big ugly mug--and they loved it.

I guess its looking as though this will be the cover (it won the informal voting contest I held on FB). When a dozen or so people all vote for it and none of my other covers get a vote... that says something to me about which cover people will most likely stop to look at on the store shelf. And if I want to sell books, well, I better listen to what the people want.

The people have spoken.

But.... wait.... for it.




UPDATE!

This morning a got a message from a higher authority. In this case, a professional artist.

He said stick with the boat.

So, I am effectively vetoing the cover with me on it (hey, I didn't want to be on a book cover anyway). And I am going with the boat cover! It will look very nice pressed into a matte cover.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more