1. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83011 by mikebreed on October 28, 2007 at 1:58 pm

I'm no expert, but the answer would seem obvious: "There isn't one." There is equally little evolutionary advantage to be gained from sexual congress performed with contraception. Does that mean the urge that led you to have said sex has no basis in evolution?

As it stands, this question is surely woefully simplistic, as are many of those in the ID/Creationist box of tricks. Just because the moral impulse to give up your seat doesn't have any direct evolutionary benefit doesn't mean it isn't ultimately born of deep-seated impulses, which are themselves the products of natural selection.

Much more interesting to ask whether the act is truly "moral", in the sense of confirming to some ultimate Good, or simply the result of an amorphous, unconscious instinct that comes ultimately from evolutionary self-interest. Or is it just the way you were brought up? And if so, why were you brought up that way? And why has it 'stuck'? Etc, etc.

Moral philosophy only really gets interesting when you get God out of the way.

2. In God we doubt

Comment #67250 by mikebreed on September 3, 2007 at 1:02 am

I don't agree with Humphrys, but can we please have a bit more sense in these threads than "what a fuckwit", Flashbaby? Honestly, if you can't do better than that, why bother posting at all?

If I came to this page as an interested but unconvinced reader, I'd take from comments like this that atheists/secularists are as they are so often painted: arrogant, rude, simplistic.

Give it a rest, eh?

3. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #58017 by mikebreed on July 23, 2007 at 2:55 am

It's extraordinary. Every attempt by a religious figure to 'rebut' scientific critiques like Dawkins' ends up once more simply in unsupported statements about Jesus Christ, or quotations from the Bible. At the end, this sermon does the same thing: degenerates once more into "This is the way it is", with support only from the Bible. Perfect circular arguing, meaningless as a response to scientific approaches. Surely there must be a clergyman - or woman - out there who at least understands *why* this is so unsatisfactory, even if they can't offer a solution.

4. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53735 by mikebreed on July 3, 2007 at 1:21 am

Someone had to say it, and good for Sutcliffe. He's too gentle on the Bishop, though. The latter's 14th Century outlook is a disgrace, and the ideas he promotes are every bit as repugnant as the ideas of the Wahhabis, even if he doesn't convert them into such direct and dangerous action. The Church needs to come out strongly on this, and condemn the Bishop's remarks. They won't, of course.

5. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51301 by mikebreed on June 22, 2007 at 8:42 am

I think the sexual comments about this girl are pretty unpleasant, and don't do our cause any favours.

As for the issue, which is the important thing, Icanus surely has the right response: where do we draw the line? Presumably anyone could arrive at school claiming a religious right to wear anything. All they have to do is stick to their guns. They don't even need parental backing, as in this case. All it would require is an "I believe", and they could do what they liked.

We have to consider the rights of the other children to be educated without this sort of nonsensical distraction.

6. Christopher Hitchens Explains It All for You: Move over, Sam Harris; another atheist wants the pulpit

Comment #40961 by mikebreed on May 15, 2007 at 8:57 am

A refreshingly thoughtful response from Dr Benway. (For my money, this response section descends too often into personal ranting and abuse worthy of the silliest fanatics. Let's champion reason, not raspberries.)

But Dr Benway, you surely realise the religious can never admit the subjective nature of their faith? Their belief is in an objective, external supernatural force. It's an attempt to escape the truth of subjecitivity.

If they admit that their faith is subjective, the whole thing crashes about their ears. Not that that wouldn't be a good thing, but there's no way they'll bring it, Samson-like, down upon themselves.

7. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39402 by mikebreed on May 10, 2007 at 2:09 pm

I may be damned in perpetuity, but at least I can spell.

'Crommwell'? And many others too numerous to bother listing.

8. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36670 by mikebreed on May 2, 2007 at 1:34 am

Comment on Sermon 1:
This is exactly the sort of thing that drives one mad. Having set up the perfectly sensible idea that there are different orders of knowledge, and that religious knowledge is much more akin to the knowledge we gain from literature, the speaker makes the enormous and fundamental leap to believing this particular 'play' as Truth: the story has "a central character whose life and death engages us completely - so completely that we, as it were, become not just spectators, but participants in the action."

This is the absolutely fundamental point - the leap from story to Truth - and it is utterly glossed over, as a sort of a priori fact that we don't need to explain.

When will religious people understand that they need to do better than this? In the end, it always comes down to "But this is True." No explanation. No exploration. Just a statement that you are forced either to accept or dismiss.

It's absolutely infuriating. Had to say so before I could move on to the others.

9. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #27998 by mikebreed on March 27, 2007 at 2:37 pm

This nuts idea about Hell, and our 'free will' to accept Salvation, reminds me of the line quoted by Christopher Hitchens in the superb debate with Stephen Fry (http://tinyurl.com/33g6hb): "We are created sick and commanded to be well."

Not sure who wrote it originally, but it's as succinct an expression of the insane premise of Christianity as any I've heard.