h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thanks for popping in and reviewing Atheism. Why not join in the discussions before moving on to the next page which is:
http://www.h2g2.com/A135712

GargleBlaster

This is only a test

The text editor doesn't seem to be working, but that's OK I'm a bright boy and managed to find out where I sould go!
As for the story, good show with the spelling and grammar, but I had to pause when I came to Darwin's ferret... That was a bit odd and seemed a touch out of place with the tone of the rest of the entry. Maybe a re-write for the end to give it a bit stronger conclusion?
BTW: Are there any formal atheist organizations, like churches of atheism? Just curious (though if there are, it might be a good bit to mention.)

Overall an enjoyable romp through religious dogma - take an 8 for effort!

I think a church of atheism would be rather self-defeating...unless, of course, the services featured a gigantic television screen playing football, and copious quanitities of beer.

As for the ferret bit...that's what I do...I get started on a subject, and I'm doing an excellent job of explaining myself, and getting my point across...and then, I just become silly. I KNOW that section has no business being in this piece. I also know it is the one bit that could keep this work from becoming a guide entry, since it's all opinion. But frankly, I love the section so much, I haven't the heart to cut it. So my real goal here is to find a way to keep it in and still slip this article past Mark Moxon's desk. Any ideas?

You could always distract him by shouting "Hey!! Look out a zepplin!" as the entry comes up on his screen. I've found that this is a very effective ploy on my employer and might just work on a member of TPTB. But don't credit/blame this misdirected idea on me!

I think your best chance to keep your ferret story in there is to tie it more directly to the previous paragraph. You'd probably have to shorten the description quite a bit, but I'm sure you could get away with at least mentioning the ferret ("Christianity has jolly old Saint Nick, and the Easter Bunny, but no one ever invented the Atheism Ferret" or something like that). BTW, I think you can safely remove the comma between Saint Nick and the Easter Bunny.

In general, I think this is a good start towards a guide entry, but it needs more information. For instance, I always considered people atheists if they didn't believe in God.....what are you if you believe in god but are against religion (i.e. "without religion")? What about agnostics? If atheists don't believe in God, how do they explain all the things that other people explain with God?

I'll start you off with a 6, but I can easily see a higher score with some more details.....

Being a life-long atheist GargleBlaster I found your yarn most interesting and I go along with your thinking.

I believe you may have trouble getting it accepted by the PTB because there is a lot of opinion included. I have had a rejection email that said - "An article should introduce the subject, explain it and go on to raise interesting points".

You have a couple of American spellings. Practiced - practised. Centres - centres. I believe the guide is being written in UK English

But of course I could be totally wrong on both these points.

Good luck

The Guide is being written in English (UK-flavour), but they don't frown at any kind of English. I don't know all the ins and outs of 'true' English spellings, so I often tend not to bother and let the paid staff do the final edit and fix up any glaring American faux pas!
Hope that helps!!

Frink: excellent suggestion! Stay tuned for an additional paragraph or two defining the difference between atheism and agnosticism. I'll also work on ways to transition more smoothly to the ferret bit.

Loony: I'm already having the argument about spellings in another forum. But for right now, I'm going to keep writing in my native tongue, and leave the misspellings to the good offices of the editors.

My personal belief on the english thing is that it should depend on the writer - as long as it is acceptable in one english language, good enough.

The atheism vs.agnosticism paragraph has been added. I think I got a bit silly at the end of it, but it should work. I also tightened up the transition to the ferret bit, making it a bit stronger by removing that "I would like" garbage. I think it'll be enough to get it past the editor's desk, but I humbly await any opinions to the contrary.

Quite good, if a little flippant. This one could easily offend people, but I think it's generally written with at least enough sensibility to get by the PTBs ... probably. I'm not overly keen on the last paragraph - I can see what you're trying to get at, but it seems bolted on and out of place. Despite not being overtly religious myself, I very much doubt that the line "a hairy, skinny guy nailed to a cross" will make it into the guide if this entry is approved.

7.

There's very little to argue about, surely. There is a good reason for using only one form of English - there may be a time in the future where one can choose a localised version of the guide that will change various words according to preferance. Therefore there needs to be a standard set and that is UK / British English in this case. The problem is, due to the widespread nature of US English, and the fact that they all tend to merge anyway, the iZations, etc, often get through unnoticed. I wouldn't be too bothered myself, but when I'm editing I have to be or they lock me in a cupboard. Well, they don't actually do this. Um ...

Dancing: I think I finally see what people are getting at. It's not so much the transition that needs correction, but the language of that final paragraph. By throwing in those asides, it's much more flippant, and generally out of tone with the rest of the article. I'm thinking of tightening up the language,and putting those silly asides into footnotes. No...I'm more than thinking of it, I'm going to do it.

As for the "hairy, skinny guy," it's an accurate description, no matter what you believe, so I intend to leave it in. Mostly because it ridicules Christianity, and that is the one thing they cannot stand. They want to be oppressed, but they hate being made fun of.

I don't know about wanting to be opressed...I think that overall the article explains the difference between atheism and agnosticism quite well. However, the tone might be just a bit TOO flippant. Personally, I'm not too bothered (I think I might have mentioned thick-skinned as one of my qualities in another forum), so, though being a Christian, I'm not easily offended. But other people might be. I'm not too keen on being too PC, but on a subject this sensitive, it pays to be careful.

All in all, I'd give it a 7

I agree - this is exactly what I was getting at.

I like the agnostic paragraph - I think it adds quite a bit to the article......however I must express slight disappointment in your description of agnostics, being one myself

Hmmm...now the entire article is being attacked for flippancy...isn't that what the Guide is all about? A bit of useful information cropping up in an otherwise silly article finding itself out of place, glancing around, wondering how it got there, and what exactly it's supposed to do now that it arrived, and generally feeling self-conscious and abandoned by all its peers.

Frink: I now look forward to an article by you on agnosticism which lampoons atheism. I'll even link yours to mine, if you like

*flip*

GB, I may just take you up on that, but I've got three other article ideas I'm working on first........