A doctor who is mixing animal and human genetic material and who is ALSO named Dr. Stephen MINGER?

You guys have to be making this up

Adam, Melbourne, VIC

“So beyond interpretation - what proof do you have for your atheism?”

The same proof you have for your (presumed) lack of belief in fairies, thor and unicorns. “On what evidence do you not believe in something”? Come on, that’s a silly question. There's no burden of proof on anyone to "prove" non existence of your god anymore than there is on you to demonstrate the non existence of shiva.

Science doesn’t provide absolute truth (we have no way of ascertaining such a thing), but it has provided us with enough knowledge to enable us to engage with and understand the natural world and to harness many of it’s forces and properties to the extent that we have things like computers and the internet.

That’s why belief in things based on that which we can test and observe is totally different from religious faith.

Nick G, Bath, UK

Peter Singer argues for the ethical nature of non-voluntary euthanasia only in the case of people with no "biographical" life and no prospect of ever having one - i.e. people who are essentially comatose. Whilst this is an uncomfortable thought for many of us, I don't think it counts as "killing surplus old people".

Incidentally, it always amuses me when theists come along to places like this and leave comments on the lines of "believe in Jesus before it's too late!" Do any of them really think that people who have made a rational, evidence based decision that the probability of the existence of any supernatural deity is vanishingly small are going to be swayed by an unsupported assertion of the "truth" of one particular instance of such a deity?

Marcus Hill, Manchester,

“2. What proof can you offer for your beliefs? Science provides data - numbers. Understanding these is interpretation - a subjective human enterprise. I can fully assimilate current science within my faith, no problem.

So beyond interpretation - what proof do you have for your atheism?”

The same proof you have for your (presumed) lack of belief in fairies, thor and unicorns.

Science doesn’t provide absolute truth (we have no way of ascertaining such a thing), but it has provided us with enough knowledge to enable us to engage with and understand the natural world and to harness many of it’s forces and properties to the extent that we have things like computers and the internet.

That’s why belief in things based on that which we can test and observe is totally different from religious faith.

Nick, Bath, UK

Phil, Nashville: "James, let me try to explain it to you. Nigel's point is that without belief in God, we tend toward the devaluation of human life."

That depends on our other social constructs. We now have a universal declaration of human rights which has been enshrined in European and UK law. It simply doesn't follow that a belief in the bishop's god is the sole protection of the value of human life and in practice it hasn't been much of a protection throughout our nation's history anyway. As an atheist, I value human life very highly and if the point is true then the stance of people like me needs to be explained.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Get over it folks move with the times. Religion was the control paradigm of the past two thousand years. Science will be the control paradigm of the foreseeable future. Both have claimed to have the peoples interests at heart but both have proven otherwise. Beware the scientific dictatorship in place of the theocracy.

Jonnie G, Melbourne, Australia

David, thinking of foreskins and lack thereof : Jewish tradition (as seen in the Old Testament) required circumcision of its male members (ouch). Christianity did and does not.
I believe St Paul talks about this (in the New Testament) because the early Christians were made up of both Jews and Gentiles. He was attempting to merge different faith traditions into one. No one in this instance is "changing rules to suit themselves."
God bless.

Marcella, Chicago,

Peter Singer says it. He has been saying it for years. And he is the chair of the ethics department at Princeton University. Does that count?

Spence, Durham,

James from Plymouth wrote: "Nigel MacNicol from Okehampton starts by asserting that humans are so dfferent than animals and then states that he would want to kill old people if it weren't for fear of divine retribution. Says more about believers than atheists if you ask me."

No. That is incorrect. Here is what Nigel MacNicol wrote: "Who wants to kill the elderly? Answer, we all do, as soon as atheists, like David, persuade us that there is no Soul, no Heaven or Hell and no God to punish us."

James, let me try to explain it to you. Nigel's point is that without belief in God, we tend toward the devaluation of human life. You can disagree with his premise if you like, but to take that and claim that he was saying that HE wanted to kill old people is completely illogical.

And I keep reading where atheists insist that they are intellectually superior to Christians. Hmmmm....perhaps not.

Phil, Nashville, TN, USA

hang on... you want a priest to back up what he says with evidence?

doesn't really play to their strengths does it.

Hugh, London,

How appalling to see some religious folk claim as their only restrain from killing others their belief that there is punishment in the afterlife if they do so.

Martin, Buffalo, US

If God doesn't exist, why do the aetheist try so hard to prove that he doesn't? Be still and know God.

D B COOPER, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

"
Don’t make it any easier to finish people off.It’s too easy already.

Damian Hardac. "


If only that were true Damian then our planet wouldn’t be as overcrowded and ridiculously congested as it is now. Ever increasing population levels represent a real and substantial danger to us all.

Measures like contraception, birth control, morning-after pills, abortion and, for those who wish to end their own lives, euthanasia are entirely welcome and a way of keeping the population to manageable levels.

Ironically, all the religious faiths oppose these things so we should routinely ignore all of them if we have any sense of self-preservation and want to progress from Bronze and dark age tyranny.

Jason Mead, Bristol, England

Nigel MacNicol from Okehampton starts by asserting that humans are so dfferent than animals and then states that he would want to kill old people if it weren't for fear of divine retribution. Says more about believers than atheists if you ask me.

James, Plymouth, UK

What a load of rubbish religious believers talk about the sanctity of human life when every day countless members of men, women and children are killed or wounded in the name of some religion or other.

David Hughes, Worthing, West Sussex

If Nigel Hawkes wants to treat religion as an art form, like "literature, music, art" - life as a performance or religion as a fashion statement - let him say so. But in that case "truth" is not the test (except in the sense it is true that Alice fell down a rabbit hole).

So, if Hawkes wants to regulate his life according to the tenets of some religion, let him. But let him also recognise that the organisations he thereby supports have effects in the real world. Some require consent to their literal truth, some ban condoms, kill apostates, oppose medical research. (Islamist states yesterday wrecked the UN's Human Rights Council by subordinating freedom of expression to the 'right' of Islam not to be criticised.) Most discriminate against women and gays. There is a price for living in fantasy-land.

The human brain has evolved to look for patterns - a useful survival tool but with many false positives. Religion is one such false positive - one we can now do without.

David Pollock, London,

The trouble is that those who think, like David, that humans are merely the most advanced type of animal, leave themselves the freedom to decide that they are allowed to kill all those who are less developed, or less advanced. It follows that if you can experiment on an embryo, you can do so on a foetus or a baby or, even, to make the Bishop's point, an elderly person. The dividing line is when you think of another human as less advanced, thus expendable. Thus were the Nazis happy to exterminate their Jewish captives; Hutus to kill Tutsis, Chinese to kill Tibetans.

Our own history tells us that once the boundary is crossed , say, making it legal to kill an unborn infant, anything goes and mothers claim the right to kill even their own unborn child.

Who wants to kill the elderly? Answer, we all do, as soon as atheists, like David, persuade us that there is no Soul, no Heaven or Hell and no God to punish us.

Nigel MacNicol, Oakham, Rutland UK

Damien Hardac,
Stop brooding on this most unlikely scenario. More morphine is given to those who are terminally ill, so that they do not die in agony. One of my elderly relatives (who died at home) was possibly hastened to his end by extra morphine relief. I am also aware of another home death in which extra morphine was possibly the immediate cause of death--administered for the most selfless of reasons.

Dectora, London, UK

Of course a declared polocy of killing of those now deemed unusefull to the state and to 'society' would not be said.But nevertheless there is a growing 'carelessnes' over the care of the aged.First by the familiaes themselves who relegated that responsability to the state in the 1945 general election.
Care homes once goverened by local councils now sinc e privataised have also in many cases have shown and already reported of abuse and neglect .I have personal experience of a person I knew that the level of 'carelessness' was such that it tantamounted to killing him.Yet there was no nor is there any sense of any accountability.Add to that the growing cry for euthenasia the cheif medical officer demand that the state should own your organs by automatic right and you have the recipe for for state sponsered killing .I would direct you or any to the rise of nazi germany.To its progresive dehuminising and control of who lives and who dies upon the basis of state complience and usefullness.

G Blezard, lOndon, uk

It's heaven with Jesus, it'll be hell without Him. Don't wait and find out too late!

dominic, Teddington, Middlesex,

Apparently the bishop thinks that atheists, who do not buy in to his metaphysical notions like "having a soul" and "being made in the image of God", cannot see any differences between humans and animals; in other words, the bishop thinks that there are no observable differences.

I think the bishop has scored an own goal.

Norman, Anstruther, UK

Evan Harris MP is a classic example of the overlap between a secular worldview and a predeliction for euthanasia (which is mostly performed on the elderly).

Dr Christopher Shell, Hounslow, Middx, England

I will guarantee that you will receive nothing like the straight answers you gave to his questions. I doubt if he will respond at all as the various religious faiths sink to appalling new depths in telling downright lies, deliberate disinformation, sophistry and plain deceit.

This is why we have creationism and ID. This is why bishops talk hysterically about Frankenstein experiments from a position of sheer pig ignorance. This is why the Archbishop talks about tolerating parallel legal systems to accommodate religious exceptionalism under the law only for him to backtrack when the public uniformly despised the idea and then tries to pathetically wriggle out of it by suggesting that he wasn’t really saying this at all.

I am continually amazed that the media and politicians seem to think that religions have the monopoly on morality when the words, action and behaviour of its representatives indicate that it is anything but.

By their words and deeds you shall know them?

Gareth Williams, Cardiff, Wales

I would imagine that the vocal anti-Christian author Philip Pullman's standpoint on rationing carbon use might cause the death of quite a few of our elderly citizens, were it ever put into practice.

"We should have a fixed limit and if you use it all up in October, then tough, you shiver for the rest of the year."

Michael, Liverpool,

1. 'public truth that I actually think is a public myth.'

May I ask: do you believe in absolute truth? If so, where does it come from? If not what innate quality makes your truth true or more true than anothers? i.e. what makes genocide wrong when obviously the killers think it right?

2. What proof can you offer for your beliefs? Science provides data - numbers. Understanding these is interpretation - a subjective human enterprise. I can fully assimilate current science within my faith, no problem.

So beyond interpretation - what proof do you have for your atheism?

3. Typically the meaning & reason d'etre for the OT laws is missed by the casual reader, hence the comment: If this wasn't the case the Bishop would be... a whole foreskin lighter.
Cicumcision was an act of setting oneself apart for God - keeping a promise. Reiterated and expanded through Christ. Here the act of setting apart oneself is a living faith. Thus the point/reason for the law remains unchanged.

Nathan Michael, Inverness, UK

C'mon David! The religious nearly always fall back on the position that their faith is 'the truth' without any evidence to support it. That's the whole point of 'faith .... a blind belief in something that cannot be proven. Why did you expect the Bishop to be any different?

What I don't understand is why people 'of faith' think they are superior to people who don't believe. Why should any religious leader have disproportionate influence on our laws when we live in a secular society. It really is time the Bishops (etc) returned to their churches and left law-making to elected representatives of the people. It's time religious appointments to the House of Lords was abolished.

Donna Walker, Effingham, Surrey

Yes, religions do change their rules, but only in matters of discipline (e.g. fish on Fridays). Teachings in matters of faith and morals remain constant.

S Harvey, Lausanne, Switzerland

Lord save us from the ravaging, interfering, dogmatic hordes of militant atheists!
Have you seen any yet?

Avian flew, Aude, France

"What was an abomination in the Old Testament was suddenly permitted under the Apostles, and particularly by Paul." Suddenly? There was the birth of Jesus in between. Religions can be slippery, but surely they're allowed to change over time?

andy, levenshume,

Nobody advocates killing the elderly, but it gets done, sometimes maliciously by Shipman et al: and sometimes....well lets say one of my elderly relatives in hospital may have been helped along by a lot of legally given morphine. We can't prove anything because it was a terminal illness, and he was due to go soon (they old us so) but he was using a bed in an intensive care ward and was taking his time dying. So along came the nurse with another dose of intravenous morphine solution.......

Years later: I'm still wondering about that extra dose.

Don't make it any easier to finish people off. Its too easy already.

Damian Hardac, preston, England