51. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84044 by monoape on November 1, 2007 at 4:17 am

Thanks, Quetzalcoatl - I'll try and work out why that is (he says, having just logged back in a-feckin-gain to post this :)).

52. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84038 by monoape on November 1, 2007 at 3:47 am

Respect is earned, not demanded. And it certainly isn't won by pleading "stop being mean to our fairytales".

Or: I have no respect for 'The Infallible Leprechaun Book of Rainbows', even though a bloke called Seamus O'Flarity wants me to. Should I comply? I think not.

P.S. Is it just me or do other people need to log in every single bloody time you want to leave a comment?

53. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83914 by monoape on October 31, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Marvellous. If only we could get every theist to read this out aloud repeatedly until each argument was seared in to their conscious as much as the religious indoctrination they suffered as children.

Talking of "new atheists" (comment #7), I came across a new one (for me): "world-class "atheists"" (sic - gawd knows why the 'atheists' got quoted) - see http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JanetMLaRue/2007/10/30/faithful_atheists ... the comments are a riot, as well.

Comment #16 - Yes, I could grow to like the label 'New Atheist' ... especially if it consigns 'Brights' to the dustbin of well-intentioned-but-really-rather-crap-ideas (which gave me cause to wince when I saw a large banner of it behind the lectern in the recent AAI videos).

Who knows, 'New Atheism' could attract those who believe that 'old' atheism is nothing more than Satan-worship and orgies in the forest? Hmmm, actually that old-style atheism is sounding tempting as well. Decisions, decisions.

54. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #82859 by monoape on October 28, 2007 at 3:38 am

Hmmm, this might explain why the one SA person I know got very prickly when I mentioned my admiration and support for Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. Regrettably I didn't have the courage to pursue the issue and changed the conversation. Maybe next time....

55. Face to faith

Comment #82855 by monoape on October 28, 2007 at 3:28 am

@Macho Nachos - thanks for the excellent post ... you saved me needing to read the drivel. :)

56. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82853 by monoape on October 28, 2007 at 3:26 am

[reposted because my first attempt didn't show up - there's some flaky code behind this website]

Hell and damnation! Drivel like this spoils my day when I read it in (supposedly) quality press. Opinions are formed and the zeitgeist is shaped by our papers, and they're doing us all a disservice by giving moderate, wishy washy religious apologists column inches.

Not only is she dishonest in completely misrepresenting RD, she's merrily allowing her own children to be indoctrinated even though she says that she has "very little religious belief". How does that last one work? You either believe the whole whopper of a fairytale or you don't? 'A little religious' seems very much like being 'a little pregnant'. These 'a la carte' happy clappers get on my tits.

I hope others will join me and write directly to The Guardian in the hope that their editorial team will stop allowing tabloid-quality junk like this to appear on their pages. Send to letters@guardian.co.uk (and cc the silly woman - anne.karpf@guardian.co.uk).

Tally ho!

57. The God Delusion and Alister E McGrath

Comment #81826 by monoape on October 25, 2007 at 8:43 am

I think there's a bit of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' with Al McG - 'they' tell us that he's very intelligent and articulate, but what I see is someone mimicking an intelligent person. He's learnt a few mannerisms (the urge to slap him when he does that head-cocked-to-one-side thing is overwhelming) and sentence structures that he's seen used by intellectuals, and rolls them out, blissfully unaware, when in the spotlight.

I have an image of him when on his own with a tin of crayons, a colouring-in book, and an earnest expression as he gives the angel Gabriel a nice yellow halo.

58. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69678 by monoape on September 12, 2007 at 7:00 am

I notice the pricks are publishing Kathy's agent's email on their site (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1327), in order to make their righteous indignation felt, no doubt.

Maybe everyone here could respond with your viewpoint at http://www.catholicleague.org/feedback.php

Here's my missive:

Blasphemy - a victimless crime!

Seriously, instead of worrying about someone making a comment about an imaginary sky fairy, why don't you all do something useful with your lives? There's plenty of worthwhile projects around the world that could do with some help, although I'd start with educating your own sheep ... ummm ... I mean flock ... I mean people.

59. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69542 by monoape on September 11, 2007 at 4:40 pm

I'll be eagerly awaiting these interviews as it may help an upcoming project I hope to start. Meanwhile I'd be interested if anyone can add to the the thread I've started at http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24077

60. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69390 by monoape on September 11, 2007 at 4:32 am

Copied and pasted (with minor edits) from Pharyngula:

Islam, a religion younger than the other Abrahamic faiths, is simply going through the same homicidal and suicidal phase that characterised both early Jews and Christians. The older faiths have had reformations that forced a tiny little degree of tolerance into their philosophies. Islam is simply in the "normal" phase of any young faith, which is a murderous outrage and sense of ultimate entitlement to righteousness, resulting in the deaths of countless thousands.

Happens all the time.

61. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68953 by monoape on September 9, 2007 at 8:43 am

Thanks for heads up on The Times drivel, pewkatchoo.

Excellent response Northern Bright.

My stab at it (particularly pleased with closing sentence :)):

Here we go again.

It was Madeleine Bunting with an eye-wateringly dishonest piece in The Guardian a few days ago. Now another desperate, irrational polemic employing weasely straw men arguments.

"... Professor Dawkins certainly hates God ..."

No. No he doesn't. He doesn't believe in gods. He cannot hate something that does not exist. You may as well claim he also hates leprechauns, Odin, the tooth fairy and Zeuss. It's equally true.

"Darwin's Angel ... demolishing The God Delusion"

Really? Many consider it lost the battle before it even began by relying on dishonesty to make its case. Perhaps you would take the trouble to read the professor's response at http://richarddawkins.net/article,1610,Honest-Mistakes-or-Willful-Mendacity,Richard-Dawkins. Armed with a few facts, your writing might gain some desperately needed integrity.

As has been pointed out already, there really is no point in debating the minutiae of a work of superstitious fiction. Your interpretation of some bible text is as valuable as my opinion that hobbits always wear green socks on Tuesdays.

62. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68506 by monoape on September 7, 2007 at 10:54 am

Rather than 'throw peanuts from the gallery', I've written to the editor and the eye-wateringly deceitful woman directly:

letters@guardian.co.uk, madeleine.bunting@guardian.co.uk

Dear sirs,

Having read Madeleine Bunting's article, 'The smallest signs of retreat' (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/madeleine_bunting/2007/09/the_smallest_signs_of_retreat.html), I would like to express my deep displeasure that The Guardian is allowing such dreadful 'journalism' on to its pages.

As has been pointed out over and over in the comments to this article, Ms Bunting is guilty of some combination of laziness, incompetence and plain dishonesty.

Rather than repeat in detail the many arguments for that assertion, may I refer you to replies provided by Professor Dawkins:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/madeleine_bunting/2007/09/the_smallest_signs_of_retreat.html#comment-798710
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/madeleine_bunting/2007/09/the_smallest_signs_of_retreat.html#comment-798748

I sincerely hope that a correction and / or retraction is printed by The Guardian to redress the falsehoods made by Ms Bunting, and that in future she might consider researching her articles more carefully, or that someone be assigned to check them for her prior to publication.

Yours respectfully,

63. In God we doubt

Comment #67345 by monoape on September 3, 2007 at 5:01 am

P.S. On the issue of "foul" language - I'd really like someone to give me a coherent explanation of what, exactly is "foul" about any language. It's just words. It's more the delivery and intent than the combination of letters that causes offence.

Most profanities, or words that might be considered offensive have sexual connotation, and I wonder how much the role of religion over the centuries has contributed to that 'offensiveness'? For that reason alone there should be more liberal use of them!

Me, I'm more offended by the word 'eclectic'. I have an overwhelming urge to punch people in the face when they describe themselves as fucking 'eclectic'. If they follow up with a sentence containing 'juxtaposition', I'm going home to get the shotgun. ;)

(Foul language trivia: apparently many towns in olde England had a street called 'Cunt Grope Lane', where the oldest profession hawked their wares.)

64. In God we doubt

Comment #67336 by monoape on September 3, 2007 at 4:43 am

Oh dear, my estimation of Mr Humphrys just plummeted.

I almost gave up at the first hackneyed "militant atheists", but managed to wade through about half of it before succumbing to exhaustion.

Isn't this just an example of someone whose intellect is clearly leading them in one direction, but their childhood indoctrination stops them taking the decisive step?

As I read (over at Pharyngula?) recently: "he's baking lots of mental pretzels to maintain his beliefs".

65. Another view

Comment #66197 by monoape on August 29, 2007 at 8:16 am

Stephen Russell - "Dawkins seems to be stuck in the last century ... everything has to be proven before he'll believe it."

So people who lived in the 1900s were less likely to accept any outlandish claim that was made? Wasn't that partially the point of the program - that the masses now seem more likely to swallow 'new age' bunkum without questioning its validity?

As for the "everything has to be proven before he believes it", presumably that means Russell accepts some things without any evidence, but requires it for others. What an amazing talent he must have! An innate ability to determine fact from fiction ... give that man a Nobel Prize!

And that was just the opening paragraph. [sigh]

66. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66046 by monoape on August 28, 2007 at 4:36 am

Richard - "What I want to know is whether donations to Ted Haggard are tax-deductible."

From http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showComment.do;jsessionid=CE2D8ACB3A7C259280EC99F8B0709CB5?commentId=19396:

"Dave Coffman, the guy who uncovered the truly bizarre link between this letter and Paul Huberty, Haggard's convicted sex offender friend, has been further searching for evidence the Families With A Mission is eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. My background is in non-profit management and I've done some sleuthing on my own.

So far there is absolutely no evidence from the IRS Publication 78 that lists all non-profit organizations or Guidestar, a site that maintains information on over 3 million non-profits in the US, that Families With A Mission has ever been recognized by the IRS as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. This means no deduction for people who contribute through FWAM. It also means that FWAM, Huberty and Haggard may be adding fraud and tax evasion to their list of misdeeds.

Once the IRS gets wind of this they are in SERIOUS trouble. Remember, Al Capone got brought down for tax evasion, not any of his other crimes. The FWAM gang may be about to follow."

Maybe one of our State-side readers could make sure this is put in front of the relevant authorities?

67. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66045 by monoape on August 28, 2007 at 4:28 am

The perfect clip to demonstrate the astonishing level of hypocrisy and deceit in good ol' Teddy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6rSjrBhUIA

68. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #65872 by monoape on August 27, 2007 at 7:51 am

I guess once you get used to an income from fleecing sheep, it's difficult to give it up ... from the letter (http://krdo.images.worldnow.com/images/INCOMING/haggardletter.doc) that ex-pastor Ted sent out:

"Any help we can get with this will be greatly appreciated and, I believe, rewarded in heaven."

So, Ted somehow knows that his homophobic god is going to reward people for handing out money to help someone who used male prostitutes and drugs? And Ted, the oh-so-good Christian, thinks his needs are greater than, say, the thousands of entirely innocent children around the planet who are starving to death?

What a truly sickening individual....

Of course, the really sad thing is that many of his brain-washed flock will hand over their hard-earned cash.

Anyone have Ted's email address? ;)

69. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #65698 by monoape on August 25, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Beth,

You're missing the point - an editor of a national publication has some responsibility to do the right thing.

He shouldn't publish based on whether the subject is likely to issue a threat of violence. Imagine if newspapers excluded any 'scary' group from their pages: IRA, KGB, Scientologists, some serial killer still at large, etc. What sort of newspaper would that be?

Further, if a bunch of murderous god botherers can control what we read or hear or who we give awards to, then we're on a slippery slope to losing the fight.

70. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #65672 by monoape on August 25, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Paine,

Are we not discussing the moral backbone of those who choose to take on the role of editor of public sources of information? If I somehow found myself with the choice of accepting a position of editor of The Times, I would give some thought to the moral and social weight that goes with it.

Editor of a national / international publication will certainly require some brave and tough choices. Of course, easy for any of us to say "stand up and be counted", when we won't be hit with a fatwa ... but some responsibility comes with that salary. There's more to it than choosing the model for the cover of the lifestyle section or the astrologer for the weekend.

However, if every publication on the planet published those (really very mild) cartoons, the risk of retribution would be greatly reduced, if not diffused.

71. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #65666 by monoape on August 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm

With regards publishing the Danish cartoons, I also disagree with Richard's "prudence" argument. What could / should have happened is that every publication on the planet published those sketches. It's been a mainstay of 'western' civilisation for hundreds of years that we mock the pompous and self-important with cartoons and caricatures. The fact that large numbers of Muslims wish to make Denmark, England, France, Germany, etc., etc. their home is not good enough reason that we moderate our irreverent view of life and our open questioning of authority and stupidity.

As for the Muriel Gray 'interview', this reminds me of the moment Michael Schumacher lined up on the grid with the fastest car (after years of inferior equipment) ... like shooting fish in a barrel, but still enjoyable to watch.

72. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #64977 by monoape on August 22, 2007 at 2:24 pm

I have faith that the bright light of science and rational thought will expose religion and superstitious belief for what they are: Bronze Age nonsense that has perpetuated ignorance and indoctrinated generation after generation of children with utter nonsense.

Religion and irrational belief is certainly under attack: almost three hundred years after The Age of Enlightenment, when the suffocating stupidity of religion was first pushed away, we now need to push again. The legions of the gods are killing each other all around the planet ... because their god is the 'One True God (tm)'. Religious leaders are condemning thousands to death because their god doesn't like condoms. Religious spokesmen tell us that devastating floods are caused not by (the overwhelming evidence for) global warming but by gays and 'sinful' people.

The wording of this 'ireport' on a major news carrier shows how the USA is in danger of slipping back in to the Dark Ages of unquestioning religious, superstitious ignorance.

May the gods, goblins and leprechauns save us all before it's too late.

73. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63831 by monoape on August 16, 2007 at 10:58 am

I've been having an email debate with a friend about "Enemies of Reason". He's (hopefully!) been playing Devil's Advocate and arguing a case for astrology and alternative beliefs. Part of my response included:

"The only thing I find remarkable in astrology, or any of the other 'woo woo' beliefs, is the number of people eager to believe in it when no reliable, reproducible evidence whatsoever has been turned up in the last few thousand years. The triumph of hope over reality is an amazing thing to behold!

I guess real science is too difficult, too mundane and doesn't tell people what they want to hear: "It's going to be alright in the end ... don't worry about how ... it just will, OK"."

Just thought I'd share that bit. :)

74. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63318 by monoape on August 13, 2007 at 10:14 pm

darwin2 - "However I do believe in one God but not their sick version of Him."

So, you've created your own god? Seemingly your own 'god of the gaps'.

Can you not understand the concept that just because you have a question that either science does not have an answer for, or that you don't understand the explanation to, does not prove the existence of some über sky fairy?

If you really can't grasp that argument then you've still got a lot of work to do before you shake off your bronze age superstition.

75. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #63311 by monoape on August 13, 2007 at 9:33 pm

@Donny Yates - "Noah's Ark ... the etcher sketch end of the world as Eddie Izzard puts it - "oh fuck it"".

Very good. :) Don't recall that one from Eddie - do you know which show it's from?

Talking of Noah's slightly amazing feat of rounding up all the animals on the planet and stuffing them on a wooden boat, I read a few days ago that there are over 250,000 recorded species of beetle scattered across the globe. That seems like a good starting place for the next time one gets in to conversation with someone who thinks there might be some truth in that whopper of a tale.

76. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62728 by monoape on August 11, 2007 at 3:29 am

Excellent stuff. It sadly reminds me of a couple, who were long-time friends, that desperately want to believe "there's something more". He's embraced astrology and she psychic mediums. They're intelligent people, but enthusiastically delusional. One day I could no longer nod politely when talk of "energy" was brought up and my frank assessment of their beliefs went down like a fart in a lift. Hey ho.

Another article that should be posted to this site (where do we send suggestions?): http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,2135437,00.html

"God must henceforth be played by seasoned bad guys, psychos, nutters, killers and weirdoes." lol

77. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62314 by monoape on August 9, 2007 at 8:41 am

Yeah, it's a (rather good IMO) parody. Unlike Mrs Bowers or Landist Baptist Church, this one has fooled quite a few people.

For evidence of the parody start reading at http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/time-for-a-celebration/#comment-7164 (my handiwork) and read the following response from "Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett" (one of the custodians). QED.

78. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61892 by monoape on August 7, 2007 at 10:11 am

As someone else commented "This article is so stupid that it hurts". [sigh]

I went to the, most likely wasted, time and trouble of writing in to the comments on the article. I'll repost here for posterity:


"... where Dawkins goes wrong is to assume this is all as irrational as believing in God"

Which god? Zeuss? Odin? Ra? The god of Islam? How about Neptune? Let's assume your god is the Judeo Christian one. Why is belief in that particular god any less irrational or ludicrous than all the others you choose to dismiss? Why is it less irrational than belief in angel therapists or psychic mediums or leprechauns? There's equal evidence for all of them. This isn't a rhetorical question - I'd love to know the answer ... as would many other rational people.

Further, I'll suggest that you've fallen in to the all-too-common trap of believing that if science can't explain it right now, then your god must have done it.

Can you not see the flaw in that thinking?

It's the type of thinking that lead to murderous outrage from the god squad when Copernicus and then Galileo brought forward the heretical idea that the earth orbits the sun, and not vice versa as 'the inerrant word of God' (aka The Bible) had us all believing.

Let's not even begin on the barbarous violence that has been conducted in the name of religion over the centuries! I wonder from your article whether you've actually read any of Professor Dawkins' works? There really seems to be little evidence of that.

No - religion has proved its worth over the millenia and the positive contribution amounts to little more than some good yarns, melodic music and a selection of nice architecture.

Religion is a 'comfie blanket' from the terrified infancy of our species (hat tip to Christopher Hitchens) ... many of us have let go of it and the sooner the rest of the planet does, the better.

So, thank the gods for science and the truly rational thought it begets - it's the only thing that continues to lead us out of the dark and violent ages that we still inhabit.

79. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61171 by monoape on August 4, 2007 at 2:56 am

First? Yes, you're first on this thread to add nothing to the discussion. Can mods start deleting the growing number of idiots who add these "woohoo, I'm first!"-style comments? And then delete this comment as well. TIA.

80. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59548 by monoape on July 29, 2007 at 1:48 pm

I went for something a little more subtle / humorous - http://www.cafepress.com/buy/darwin/-/pv_design_prod/p_1743285.63487550/pNo_63487550/id_13151564/fpt_/opt_/c_360/pg_2 .

I think this campaign is poorly conceived - who thought the 'out' (gay) concept was a vote winner? I've never been 'in the closet' as far as my beliefs are concerned so I don't need to 'come out', thanks.

The 'A' graphic is way too big, and what does it really say to anyone who hasn't seen this website? I'm guessing they'll just think your name is Andrew or you come from Arkansas.

Back to the drawing board - or get the community involved and use the experience and ability available.

81. Richler defends atheism

Comment #58868 by monoape on July 26, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Greybishop,

Sounds like we had a similar ride with Ms. Kay: one of her opening gambits was to question my intellect.

She also used the 'appeal to authority' fallacious argument. I suggested that "just because I can do 20 one-armed push-ups doesn't mean I'm a reliable reference for trigonometry". Don't think she got it.

"So much for a great entrance." lol. :)

82. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58803 by monoape on July 26, 2007 at 7:27 am

"de-legitimize"? "nonrational"? She's making it up as she goes along!

"Hitchens ignores the deep religious urges and moments of transcendence that make up human existence.". Just because it feels good, don't make it right.

"These forces are not products of reason.". Isn't this the crux of the issue? Irrational belief is seen as a virtue by the religious, and an embarrassing affliction to the rest of us?

83. Richler defends atheism

Comment #58787 by monoape on July 26, 2007 at 6:02 am

Chuckle. I've just engaged in a 'lively' email conversation with Barbara, and she's one of those people for whom inconvenient things like 'evidence' and 'reality' won't shake her from her belief.

Despite the absolute clarity of Einstein's statements regarding his lack of belief in any deity or religion, Barbara seems to be clinging on to one sound bite from Albert - "God doesn't play at dice". That's it. That's enough for her to be certain that Einstein is on The God Team.

Also, her religious views are definitely of the 'a la carte' variety. She asserts that 'god' is a straw man set up by atheists to mock the religious. I'm not making this up, folks!

84. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56325 by monoape on July 15, 2007 at 3:36 am

In case my comment to the author's blog (http://blogs.theage.com.au/thereligiouswrite/archives/2007/07/_well_its_time.html) is not allowed past the moderation queue, I'll post here as well for posterity:

All those fine words and no attempt to engage any of the lucid arguments presented by your antagonists? You simply rely on ad hominem attacks , straw men and waffle.

So many bold assertions, but no evidence to back them up.

Pitiable.

Also, when will the god squad realise they're becoming caricatures of themselves every time they label any atheist who stands up to be counted as "militant", "strident" or "shrill"? If you hope to make some headway, attack the arguments not the man.

And to address what I believe is one of your questions: why am I an angry atheist? Maybe because my (recently departed) prime minister said he would be "judged by a higher power", i.e. his imaginary friend in the sky, in relation to invading another country. Maybe because my taxes are used to fund faith schools in order to brainwash a new generation of children. Maybe because my nine year old niece was incredulous when I told her that a god did not make the earth and all the animals on it. Maybe because the moderate, 'cuddly' religious types legitimise an environment where the not-so-cuddly, 'I'll blow up anyone who doesn't believe what I believe' types are able to grow.

Also, it simply irks me that I see friends and family fooled and deluded by a really quite silly book that purports to have *all* the answers.

Finally, your assertion that "Western atheists thought religion would simply die, but instead it is flourishing."? Do you have faith this is true simply because you say it is? Reality is a little different - http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm. My favourite conclusion from the report: "A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years.". A new Age Of Enlightenment? It can't arrive soon enough!

85. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55945 by monoape on July 13, 2007 at 2:29 am

A very good interview and an enjoyable read made all the more enjoyable by Hitchen's wonderful attack on Falwell in the embedded video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkAPaEMwyKU). He's expressing his disgust at how Falwell has hoodwinked the gullible, faithful and that he must have "woke up each morning, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking "I've got away with it again"". Wonderful.

P.S. Would there be any chance that people stopped posting a comment just because they think they're going to be the first to do so? This isn't the first article with a tiresome "Ooh, ooh - I'm the first to comment!".

86. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #52798 by monoape on June 28, 2007 at 5:28 am

"If actual forceful evidence of God existing was found ..."

What would that be for any of us? Parting of the waves? Storms of locusts? A second moon suddenly appearing in orbit around our planet?

For me, if something 'way out there' happened with no natural explanation, I'd still be no closer to believing in a god. I might be comfortable discussing the possibility that some alien race, millions of years in advance of us had popped round to see us.

Imagine how any of us would be viewed if we popped back 4000 years with a few 'toys': Harrier jump-jet, automatic weapons, TV, pennicilin, fireworks, laser show, etc. Blow up a few things, fly around, smite a few non-believers, cure some nasty rashes, put on a show at night ... in no time at all they'd be building temples in my name and sending half a dozen virgins up every night. ;)

87. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

Comment #35788 by monoape on April 28, 2007 at 9:31 pm

Now all he needs to do is go collect the ~1.7 million described (not estimated / actual, which would be much higher) species from around the globe, feed 'em, make sure none of them escape and eat or be eaten by the others and then release them back in to habitats around the globe where they can survive.

Should be finished by teatime.