(November 19, 2011 at 1:59 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

Oh Dear...I thought it was just one of Terry Pratchett's Dwarfs Mine Signs..... How embarrassment



http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Mine_sign

---

The minesign for the Following Dark is a circle with two parallel diagonal lines slashed through it, making it resemble a No symbol. This is not a good sign, and can result in grags in a mine sitting surrounded by candles (as mentioned in Thud). It translates as "we await what follows with dread", or, more loosely, "Repent, ye sinners!".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfs_(Discworld)

I have thud the board game.

Its a really good game I can recomend it.

I played it with Darwinian a couple of times.

(November 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm)tackattack Wrote: While his argument is poor his point was one I agree with. It .If atheism is a lack of belief a null symbol would be closer to the mark, than a symbol for something, especially since there couldn't because universal consensus for atheists. By placing an object there when the definition is a lack of belief in God, I feel misses the mark, although I can see the massive links to the majority belief, IMO. I agree although the universal use of the symbol make it quite a poor choice in symbol as well. Not that I really give a rats about what symbol atheists use, generally, but since you asked I answered. I think a similar null sign with a pink unicorn, or a blank null sign with "without evidence" written circularly inside the symbol, as part of it would be more appropriate than an atom. I'm too busy right now to express it with ms paint so sorry if I didn't convey the idea well.

That and I've been pick'n little fights here and there and I knew you'd notice

aw I see.

Yeah the symbol doesn't mean shit to me either, I just thought it was interesting that he made such a bold assertion as to the symbols relevance to Atheism, when it clearly is relevant to anything and everyone. Hell, the christians could actually slap it over the word atheists thereby completely nullifying the symbol altogether in that particular time and setting - and of course that was my point all along.

It's a silly argument ... but I wanted to have it.