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

Stephen Green is priceless. This is from his W***pedia entry:

"After giving thanks that [Jerry Springer: The Opera] had reached its final night at the venue, Green was hit by a bird dropping as he spoke a prayer in the street, which he interpreted as a message from God to cease talking to the TV crew."

I can think of alterate interpretations of such a message from God

Gif

sorry to barge back in here, been unsubbed for ages for various reasons.

But I was reading this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-advertising-atheistbus

in CiF about the bus ads. And finally, I think, I have an actual example of the faith or belief of a moderate 'that isnt my religion' person. What he says is

"But if I had to summarise my convictions in a way that could communicate with believers and non-believers alike...it would be by saying that my life is staked, deeply fallibly, on the conviction that the power of love is finally stronger than the love of power."

Do read the link though (the above is from the penultimate paragraph) as the final paragraph carries on from this gives a brief statement of why he thinks this leads to a god based worldview. (Would post here but don;t want to fall foul of the c&p rules).

I'm not going to get into my views on this right now in case no one is interested! But I thought I'd post it for consideration and, as I say, as an actual example of what 1 person's faith is based on.

Will be happy to exchange ideas if anyone else does!

The campaign site itself.

http://www.atheistcampaign.org/

I agree with some comments left that it shouldn't be 'There probably is no God" as that's a) agnostic and b) wishy-washy and trying to be 'non-offensive'.

My comments put on the site:

"The Christians wouldn’t go half-arsed like this. Be assertive: ‘There are no gods.’ is what the slogan should be.

No capital ‘g’ let’s take in all gods and not be Christian-centric and adhering to the ‘God’ usage.

And saying ‘probably isn’t a God’ is again being subserviant to the religious. Even the word Athiest is defined as a word derived from ‘Thiest’. And Non-believer is also out. I believe supernatural beings do not exist…including gods.

No more pandering and unintentional fore-lock pulling.

Having said that great to see an ad will be up at all. Well done!!!!!

And they say organising athiests is like trying to herd cats…"

For once we get some organsation!

And Green well. The sheer irony of the preaching comment just sums him up.

thought the 'probably' version wasimposed by TfL so as not to offend the religious?

Meself, I'd take the mickey out of those Alpha Course adverts. You know, picture of a nearly-empty church with one bloke praying in it all alone and the caption 'Is there more to life than this?'

Gif

The Gif-o-paedia..

You must have read my mind!

I was going to suggest something like this, but also with a set of linked articles expanding on various subjects raised in this thread.

It's a shame so many excellent comments are buried somewhere in the 13,000...

Not to mention the nearly 27,000 on this thread: A192835

F

Huh? the link didn't work. Let's do it the long way round. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F55607?thread=192835 F

Ictoan

If that's the case then TfL are making a travesty of free speech.

We should then stop Churches having signs saying 'Jesus Lives' and rather have 'Jesus Probably Lifes'. So they aren't offending secularists and non-Christians.

Churches can say what the hell they like as far as I'm concerned. That's up to them in a free society.

And if the slogan is something completely unscientific like 'There are no gods' and therefore superstitious, I want none of it.

Actually I want none of it anyway. I heard their spokeswoman on the radio earlier. She sounded like a bit of a nut job to me.

Ah ha, the 'probably' explanation. Spot on Ictoan.

http://www.atheistcampaign.org/probably/

"…transport advertising regulations are more stringent than normal advertising regulations (for billboards, etc) and the decision of whether to run the ad or not is very much at the discretion of the bus companies. It’s their private space, and their criteria for this (I know it’ll make all atheists reading this bang their head against a wall, but here goes) is that the advert “must not offend religious people”.

Right just given a donation to them. The requirement for 'probably' in the quote tipped me over the edge.

As a believer in the scientific method it would offend me. Why should we play the same game when there can never be evidence for the statement, 'there are no gods'

Much better to try and get people *thinking differently* as far as I'm concerned. Once people really start to get a grip on the concept of evidence and the scientific method we might actually get somewhere *real*.

Otherwise it just smacks of playground, 'my belief is bigger than your belief'

>thought the 'probably' version wasimposed by TfL so as not to offend the religious?

It'll offend the religious regardless. I think the "probably" is so as not to appear too preachy or condescending. Religious advertising tends to do this as well: the Alpha Course don't have "Join us or burn!" on their adverts, they go for the soft "Is there more to life than this?"; it's an attempt to reel people in rather than turn them away. Dawkins et al are just doing the same thing and it's very wise of them.

I think since the idea is to send up religious advertisements, rather than to imitate them, 'probably' is better. It's just a bit of fun.

More being added to the BBC report:

<"However the Methodist Church said it thanked Professor Dawkins for encouraging a "continued interest in God".>

Amazing barefaced spin!



I think Christianity is the COMPLETE opposite and for people who don't want to face upto many things like when we die...we die.

Quite amazing what they come out with and actually believe what they say...I presume they believe in what they say or it may be just blind faith...

... and for additional reference, there's always the collection of FFFF articles

A665101

>I think since the idea is to send up religious advertisements, rather than to imitate them, 'probably' is better. It's just a bit of fun.<

bouncy...you and I are in full agreement. It's more funny, more true and has connotations of Heineken....(nothing wrong with that)

(But seriously guys they need a new spokesman. That woman I heard on the radio earlier for them had *no* sense of humour...... more Dawkins coming at things half cock )

They are about to start a phone in discussion on it on radio5live...

Oh, dear they have got Stephen Green on. Though they might just have him on for humour value.

I am actually warming to the 'probably' bit now especially the way it winding Green up.

He really needs professional help though.