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

I was reading the message string, and I don't recall who it was wanting to know, but there IS a religion which incorporates atheism. The faith is called Religious Humanism, and "has been loosely defined as religion with matters of deity worship and traditional theological belief deleted. Replacing these factors is a belief in humanity as the highest known form of intelligent life, and a belief in the scientific method as the best way to determine truth."
I was thinking of crusading for atheism, much like Christians and Muslims do. This urge is intense during conversations in which "well-meaning" people are attempting to convert me. How about I convert them, instead? Meanwhile, flippant and irreverent as it is, I appreciate the article and it's message. I copied a bit of it (the ferret part, no less!) to my sister, and she loved it... asked for the source. Keep pushing it.

Thanks Rateotu. When dealing with a subject as sensitive as this (and dealing with it as unsensitively as I have), I have to expect lots of negative feedback, so positive reactions like yours lets me know I should stay the course.

As for the bit about Religious Humanism, I'd like to incorporate that into the article, with your permission, of course.

Great job... try spelling Yawheh as it was originally spelled in the aplphabet (which contained no vowels): Yhwh

I'll pretend like that was my original idea and grant you permission. Go for it. For more information, check the web. http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm is a good source.

Hmm... This is a very nice page, but there's a few points I'd like to make:

1) Agnostics are intelligent and cunning in that they are preparing themselves for all eventualities without committing them to any individual religion. (Can you tell I'm agnostic )

2) A normal atheist (as well as a normal agnostic, and a normal religious person - well let's just say everyone except the severely mentally deranged) would not believe in Darwin the ferret by definition of his religious status.

3) I know this isn't your fault, but why are agnostics labelled "without knowledge"? Surely they are simply ignoring all the conjecture in the world of religion, which is the most important thing to do when trying to find knowledge in any area of anything?

Cutlery

As I said, I don't think your article is way off the mark, just slightly. I won't condemn anything for being overtly flippant, but the guide is taking on a more factual stance that is gradually replacing the rubbish that was here when it started. In almost every case things are treated with a balance of fact, humour, tact and flippancy, but this is a fine balance and needs to be taken seriously and carefully. As I said, your article isn't too far outside whatever boundaries may or may not exist, but I would be careful nonetheless as all things religious are entirely subjective and you never know whose desk it will land on ...

That's not to say one should "sell out" and dilute every article accordingly, just be careful of unintentional insults!

Cutlery, I'll address each of your points in turn:

1. I am very fond of agnostics. Their's is the only truly logically defensible belief. But I figured, since I crucify Christians in my article, I might as well share the love with agnostics. Just for balance, you see...

2. True, normal Atheists would not believe in Darwin the Ferret, but he is not any more religious than Santa or the Easter Bunny. Darwin would be like them, an icon to wear on t-shirts and possibly teach our children to evolve on their own.

3. I am not labelling agnostics with that "without knowledge" thing. This is just the literal translation of the word from its Greek roots: a=without, gnosus=knowledge or wisdom. This does fit in with agnostics, though, because their basic tenet is "no one can truly know whether or not there is a god...but the world's religions are bunk."

Dancing: I appreciate your concern in this matter, but I cannot change my writing style. Every article I write will have this flippant attitude, because that is who I am. And I personally feel that the most sensitive subjects are the ones that most desperately need a bit of flippancy. I'll upset some people along the way, but I'll also entertain two or three.

And your choice of the word "dilute" is an appropriate one...if I removed the aura of fun from my articles, they would have all the appeal of a soda with all the ice melted in it.

But I do understand and appreciate where you're coming from. You're trying to help me get this approved as a guide entry, which is very noble, as well as the point behind this whole Fun Run exercise. But if the powers that be decide that this article will offend someone, and they reject it, I will retain it in its current form anyway (barring future helpful suggestions). I'll keep it because I haven't come across anyone yet who has been offended by it. I'll keep it because several people have made extremely positive comments about it. But mostly, I'll keep it because I like it. This is one of my favorite articles I've written, and bringing it into the Fun Run has improved it.

Love the article. I, too, feel that atheists have been lacking an icon so Darwin The Ferret's time has come.
One question - I don't understand what you mean by 'agnostics ... are likely to become castrated corpses in San Diego, wearing purple jumpsuits and awaiting a ride on a comet'. I don't get the reference, but maybe 'cos I'm a Brit.
I count myself as an agnostic because I don't care if there's a God or not. If there is, I figure He/She/It/They don't care too much about me either so that's OK.
It's fun to send atheists Christmas cards - they go some beautiful shades of Crimson, well the ones who've had a humour bypass op anyway. Most agnostics I know find strong belief or anti-belief systems pretty funny. Standing firm on anything 'unknown' is a bit like setting up a roller disco on the San Andreas fault. Oh yeah they did that and called it L.A.

Good stuff,
TWF

Wisest: The "agnostics ... are likely to become castrated corpses in San Diego, wearing purple jumpsuits and awaiting a ride on a comet" bit is a reference to a real event. A cult called Heaven's Gate commited mass suicide in San Diego a couple of years ago, when the comet Hale-Bopp (did I spell that right?) passed through. They were convinced that there were no gods but aliens, and they were using the comet as camouflage for their ship. They were coming to pick up the faithful, who could only catch a ride after shedding their earthly bodies. The males had all been ritually castrated, they donned purple Nike jumpsuits and track shoes, and proceeded to imbibe the preferred beverage of mass suicidals everywhere (poisoned Kool-Aid).

The above is soon to be a footnote in the article...thanks for pointing out the deficiency.

Great! Oh, am I supposed to say there's something wrong with it? Ummm, I know! The "1" next to the word "non-threatening" does not appear to have a footnote, and I'm dying to know what that footnote would say. There! (this is rather fun)

Hi GargleBlaster, thanks for clearing that up. I do remember hearing about the Heaven's Gate berks at the time but I didn't know about the castration, the Purple Jumpsuits or remember it happened in San Diego, so thanks. - TWF

Footnote on the footnote: It's wayyy down on the bottom of the page, buried under all the code for the Fun Run ad and the text box. Once the run is over, the offending code will be removed, and the footnote will be restored to its place of glory.

Thanks for stopping by and saying nice things!

Wha,t no link to the famous atheist over at http://www.h2g2.com/U24 ?

Personally I don't think the Darwin/ferret joke works too well.
Otherwise I enjoyed the article.

;^)#

well, quite controversary, that one. so I like it . I didn't find any mistakes, and I didn't think it too "flippant".
I think you could leave out the comma in "... likely to attack a man with a rock, with a tank."
what got me confused a bit was the referral to atheism as a "sect" - could be that the definition of a sect is different in english though. You could add, that atheists aren't likely to try to convert you to their form of belief. or non-belief. I missed a reference to the "esotheric beliefs", as they are always trying to convert you like the "theists" - but maybe that doesn't fit in and is just my bad opinion...
"Darwin the ferret" had me a bit puzzled, too *I thought it was finches?*, I liked it, but don't share your thinking that Darwin would be the equivalent to a saint or whatever for an atheist, as that would be idolising in a "semi-religious" way, too. and I do know quite many atheists who wouldn't know one bit about Darwin. This fusion of Darwin and the personalised evolution of children you describe doesn't sound right in a factual way - but my, a good joke .
hope I could contribute...

This is without doubt the best article I have read in my days on h2g2. It's funny, told me something I didn't know before, and best of all, patronising and cynical. Fantastic.

I'm an atheist. I try to convert people. Hmm.

Hmmm are you Michael Bywater?

kats: I think the comma is very necessary, otherwise it gets very confusing: "man with a rock with a tank." If the editors disagree, they'll hack it out, but really, I have to give them something to do, otherwise they end up hacking out useful bits.

As for Darwin the Ferret, I think some people take him too seriously. He would be a fairy tale for the children...nothing more. But above all, he's a joke. Just a harmless little joke to wrap up the article. Rather thought provoking, (which is why I like him so much) but really no more than that.

And, as Wowbagger has so succintly said, there are quite a few militant atheists out there who will try to convert people. I myself am not one of them, however. I believe a person's choice of religion is, well, personal, and everyone else should mind their own damned business. That's why I hate it when Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on my door. That's why I want to scream every time Reggie White (famous NFL star) gets on TV to talk about his personal relationship with god. So I tell people what I believe when I am asked. And if someone asks to discuss my beliefs, I engage them with a snowstorm of studied argument that overpowers all but the most dedicated theists (note on that, I have an article detailing all the problems with Christianity currently in the works). But even when publishing my beliefs, I am avoiding pushing them on anyone. Anyone who might be offended can simply look at the title of the article, and choose to move on. If they choose to read it, and choose to respond with disagreement, then they have invited the discussion. But I am very good at those types of discussions, should the person approach it with an open mind.