It’s your special day, but you’re married to the mob

emmada great says:

08:59am | 21/02/10

I don’t need one, I want one. Why? The dress. I just want to have MY go at the big ugly dress I cannot wear anywhere else.

Kate says:

07:28pm | 20/02/10

Gordon, you may have ‘done’ sociology and culture studies at uni but you didn’t say whether or not you did well or even passed. I suspect not if you can’t structure any kind of argument. I have no idea what you’re trying to say here!

Charles Kelly says:

06:28pm | 19/02/10

Well Matt, you’ve got two choices if you “want to get married, not civil unioned” - find a nice girl, or find a new word.

Matt says:

12:00pm | 19/02/10

Because I want to get married, not civil unioned.

Steely Dan says:

11:16am | 19/02/10

“Why the hell cant they just call it something else?”
Why can’t everybody use the same term?

Hopium says:

04:05pm | 25/02/10

OBB tag!!

antman says:

01:40pm | 19/02/10

As I understand it, Dear Leader’s objection is not to full legal recognition of same-sex relationships equivalent to heterosexual marriages. His objection is to calling it marriage. Marriage, as a formal recognition of a relationship/commitment between a man and a woman, has a deeply ingrained place in our society and most (if not all) others. Whether that is because it is the will of the predominant deity in the society or simply because the arrangement lends itself to preventing the society and the species petering out is really a moot point. However, it is overwhelmingly the case that a fundamental aspect of “marriage” is that it’s a heterosexual arrangement.

I’m far from right-wing or religious and have attended commitment ceremonies and variations on that for a number of very good homosexual friends. I fundamentally believe that anyone in a committed, consenting relationship should have the right to have that relationship legally recognised and afforded the full legal rights afforded to any otherpersonal relationship. Not only that, but it should be afforded the same RESPECT.

However, because of the significance of its role and history in our society, I agree that “marriage” should be reserved for heterosexual relationships between one man and one woman.

James says:

07:38am | 19/02/10

Good on you Brad.  A highly nuanced and well thought out position.

marley says:

08:03pm | 18/02/10

Actually, though you may not have realized this, we’re talking about marriage ceremonies and not about religion.  And I doubt that God, assuming he exists, actually has laid down as an eternal law that children must be invited, or that the bride has to have a bridesmaid. 

There were marriage ceremonies long before Christianity, there are marriage ceremonies in many religions other than Christian,  and a Hindu wedding or an Islamic or Sikh or Buddhist one,  is as valid as a Catholic ceremony.  Personally, I’ve always regretted not being able to ride to my wedding on the back of an elephant.

Shane says:

06:33pm | 18/02/10

Tory et al - enjoy the day, There are so much focus on the wedding and little or nothing on how we cope after it. I do say that the celebrant we used was fun and I would appreciate the wit and humor at my funeral.

To Paul Davies - your rant positively inspires my ETERNAL atheism. Because someone found them doesn’t mean the bible is any more than a recounting of history not some conclusive proof of the existence of anything else.

Just remember the current Pope’s last job.

Vale Copernicus.

THE BANTAM says:

06:10pm | 18/02/10

Sodom and Gomorrah Hey what?  Gosh, I haven’t heard that saying since the time of my parents.  Them pointing out of a messy room.  The cursing and bellowing out with ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’, as to insinuate an untidy home or your bedroom, and you had better get your act together and clean it up!  OK I get the jist.
One thing is for sure is that the names imply A NO GO AREA to venture into.  Only thing is,  one cultures/morals,  sodom and Gormorrah is another ones opposite.  For instance what we thing as immoral is another ones way of life.  Crazy isn’t it.

Steely Dan says:

04:51pm | 18/02/10

Chariot wheels in sea = man parted ocean and killed entire army? Paul, have you heard of the concept of Ockham’s Razor? How else could a bunch of chariot wheels (not the entire remains of an ancient army, but a bunch of chariot wheels) get into the Red Sea?

“remains of Sodom and Gomorrah burned to ash”
Are they the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah? How did you determine this?

“you can see it on Google Earth, look for “uzengili” in Turkey”
...and be prepared for disappointment!

Charles Kelly says:

11:48am | 22/02/10

Yes Aramane, “seriously”. You’ve got nothing.

Once again - throughout history, how many legal “commitments of love between two humans predating any organised religion” falling into the category of “marraige” were between a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

Jonathon says:

04:06pm | 19/02/10

Marriage: a formal, monogamous and heterosexual union for life.

I would argue that people getting married these days may intend the above, but rarely accomplish it. Informal weddings, cheaters and divorces… why is it just the hetrosexual part that is illegal? Divorces aren’t illegal, cheating isn’t illegal and I could get married wearing budgie smugglers if i wanted to.

However, it would appear that neither of us will be changing our veiws any time soon, so I will throw out the olive branch and say that I couldn’t agree with your more about religious folk being ‘deluded nutbags’.

A talking burning bush. Seriously?

Aramane says:

03:42pm | 19/02/10

Charles, ‘“shot to pieces”? Seriously? Marriage existed in a legal means long before it existed in a religious context. The idea of marriage was to protect the perceived ‘weaker’ partner in the case of separation. Procreation, I’m quite certain, existed long before the concept of any form of commitment of love.

The only thing a commitment of love has been based on is a commitment of love - procreation and a commitment to a family structure is a result of the commitment of love not the reason for the commitment in the first place.

Charles Kelly says:

02:19pm | 19/02/10

It’s ANYTHING BUT “irrelevant” Jonathon. The tradition of “a commitment of love between two humans [which] predates any organised religion” has throughout history been based on procreation - so your argument is shot to pieces.

Jonathon says:

12:43pm | 19/02/10

Irrelevant. The feelings are the same.

Charles Kelly says:

06:06pm | 18/02/10

Jonathon, how many “commitments of love between two humans predating any organised religion” were were between a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

Tina says:

02:07pm | 18/02/10

It’s surprising how many rigid belief systems come to light in these situations.
When I got married I was surprised at how many of my seemingly easygoing acquanitances (but not my friends) were horrified when they found out I wasn’t changing my name. However, the thing that they found hardest to accept was that I didn’t want an engagement ring. Some of them even had the hyde to tell my husband that I really must secretly want one. As a human being (not a bower bird) I found that assumption pretty bizarre.

Tory Shepherd says:

01:50pm | 18/02/10

You can’t choose relatives, Ian!

Steely Dan says:

02:35pm | 18/02/10

No INNATE meaning, John.  We find meaning where we find meaning.  I can still enjoy this life without a belief in a supernatural being.  If you think sunsets are nice simply because you think a deity put them there, you’re (for lack of a better term) soulless.  I don’t think you - or anyone else - thinks like that.

Bad cook says:

02:44pm | 18/02/10

Why should marriage be the domain of religion?

about.com says it best….

Although many view marriage as a private expression of their love for one another, for centuries matrimony has been a very public institution impacted by tradition, culture, religion, and laws. Throughout the centuries, the institution of marriage has been changing and continues to change.

The word “bride” comes from old English for the name for “cook,” while the word groom means “man”. Does that mean that anyone who finds that aspect of marriage tradition troubling should also not get married?

Dav says:

10:04pm | 18/02/10

oh dear alright.  Not getting married and having children!  I am the same and it is a life choice, after being engaged twice and calling them both off (I called canned them both)  I can just hear the whispers and straight out opinions of everyone I know.  They range from, ‘something really bad must have happened for her to call off a wedding’ (that is right, apparently I called off the wedding, not the relationship), poor thing - we have to hook her up with blah blah blah’, ‘do you think she will ever be happy?’, ‘she has to have children in the next two years before it is too late’, and it goes on and on and on.
I am happy, successful and completely ok and can see the writing on the wall enough not to think weddings, marriages are everything.  Most of my friends and relatives, colleagues etc spend some time complaining about there partners (men and women).  And these people are intelligent, respected etc., yet…..wtf   Can we focus elsewhere?  It doesn’t appear so.

John says:

03:07pm | 18/02/10

Yep.  You sure look different in your wedding dress than in the stock passport photo used in the paper and on the punch.

Tim says:

02:53pm | 18/02/10

EJ,
so Tony is a douche for having a different opinion to you?
so tolerant and inclusive aren’t you.

Aramane says:

02:42pm | 18/02/10

Marriage was not initially between a man and a woman necessarily or a religious act. Religions have adopted it, claimed it as their own and slapped a sacred sticker on it - never mind the fact that they all somehow have this sacred ceremony. The generally stupid masses now believe everything that they have heard of ‘marriage’ without looking at the source of the lies (religion). Of course the religious want to claim it is sacred and that you can’t ruin the sanctity of marriage by having between the ‘filthy sinful homosexuals’ - its all about control, something that all religions have been trying to keep for thousands of years. Keep pandering to them, your ignorance keeps them operating.

ej says:

01:50pm | 18/02/10

Tony, you douche, we control lanugage, it doesn’t need to control us. We human beings created the words and the definitions. Words only mean what we want them to mean. The definition of words change over time. Or haven’t you noticed?

The whole “marriage is between a man and a woman” bullsh*t is the lamest excuse I’ve ever heard. Admit it, you’re not a “pedant”, you’re a homophobe.

Words aren’t set in stone. We can re-write the dictionary, you know.

Charles Kelly says:

01:49pm | 18/02/10

If by your definition “marriage” is “just a word” Matt, then all other words are “just words” as well - like “f*ggot” and “n*gger” for example (no offence intended - simply using to illustrate the dangerous fallacy in Matt’s argument). Do you REALLY think this is acceptable??? Surely not?

jec says:

01:14pm | 18/02/10

I agree Tony!  If same-sex couples want to make it legal, then that’s fine, but leave the word “marriage” alone.  I wonder how many of the “middle of the road Australians” (as Tory calls them) would think this?

Matt says:

12:32pm | 18/02/10

Why is it exactly between a man and a woman?

It’s just a word, geeze, let them call it whatever they want.

Alex says:

12:12pm | 18/02/10

I agree Tony if homosexual people want to be joined in union thats great go for it but the direct definition of marriage is : “the social institution under which a MAN and WOMAN establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies,” so lets not all get caught up in bashing religions because we feel left out, like i said if you want to be together do it under some other name so the people that want to keep it special.

Tory Shepherd says:

11:54am | 18/02/10

Hey, Robert - I don’t move in very uptight circles at all - but was still really surprised by the resistance to change. And I was trying to make the point that it’s not really homophobia that’s the problem with people resistant to gay marriage, just a more generalised clinging to tradition.

And really most people were really supportive of what we wanted to do, and also are really supportive of gay marriage, but I was surprised by the vehemence and anger of the substantial minority.

Vicki PS says:

02:46am | 20/02/10

When civil celebrants came into being in 1973, most people who became celebrants did so as a form of social service (like being a JP), or because they held particular beliefs not aligned with established religions (eg. the Humanist Society).  It seems to be only in more recent years that being a celebrant has become a business proposition—wedding, funerals, anything—and a lucrative one at that.  I was frankly shocked when I found out what civil celebrants charge these days!

MD says:

10:59am | 19/02/10

I’m currently studying to become a marriage celebrant and have done a lot of research on celebrants out there. A lot of celebrants offer other ceremonies as well (eg namings, renewal of vows and yes, funerals).

Some will offer the stock standard pre-written service Tory describes and see celebrancy as a chance to listen to their own voices. These are, however, thankfully in the minority. Others - one of whom I aim to be - take the time to listen to their clients and write a new ceremony from scratch, with full approval from the couple beforehand. Sadly, as with most industries it’s a case of getting what you pay ( and look) for.

Tory Shepherd says:

11:50am | 18/02/10

Good point, RP - it’s just that our experience and the experience of several friends has been that many celebrants offer a standard pre-written service with small changes for personal preference - and it is really easy to imagine that they might turn up with the wrong song sheet and accidentally insert your name into a funeral service. Impersonal, interchangeable. I’m sure priests are sometimes guilty of the same thing - stock words - if they don’t personally know those involved.

Charles Kelly says:

01:22pm | 22/02/10

Aramane, now you’re just being a hypocrite and not even reading what I’ve said. You say “Religion can have their rules and we should all respect that”, and yet you’re clearly NOT willing to do so! Now THAT’S “absurd”!

Aramane says:

03:12pm | 19/02/10

Charles, now you’re just being absurd and not even reading what I’ve said. Religion can have their rules and we should all respect that - they can choose how a religious ceremony should be conducted in their church and who it can be between - they already do this, such as the Catholic church not marrying people who haven’t had a prior marriage annulled.

The issue is not how any individual religion conduct their ceremonies - the problem is that they are claiming ownership of something that is for many Australian’s; and people across the globe; non-secular. ‘Marriage’ is not a religious institution - more marriages are being performed outside of churches and outside of religious ceremonies than ever before. It is a state sanctioned act - and as we all know there should be a separation between church and state.

As such it is not up to religion to determine what marriage should or should not be. They have their definition and they can keep that definition - but to enforce that definition upon other people for whom their religion is irrelevant shows a lack of respect for anyone else. They can choose not to acknowledge marriages that are outside the scope of how they define marriage, that is their prerogative - what they can’t do is define what marriage should be for everyone.

Charles Kelly says:

01:48pm | 19/02/10

So according to you Aramane, people should have the right to get married in a church naked (along with everyone else in the church), then finish it off with a group sex session on the altar. After all, THEY DECIDE what marriage means to THEM right? So how dare those religious nutbags be offended just because some people REFUSE to respect their sacred beliefs! Right? Well, where do you draw the line?

Aramane says:

12:20pm | 19/02/10

It doesn’t how many were between a man and man or a woman and awoman, the fact is they did happen, and do still happen in cultures around the world today.

I can respect the religion without having to agree with them or have to follow their perculiarities. The Hindu’s believe cows are sacred, do you respect that and not eat beef because it amounts to the same thing? Religion can’t have things their way just because they claim anything else goes against their values - particularly not with something that was never a religious institution in the first place.

Charles Kelly says:

06:04pm | 18/02/10

That’s irrelevant Aramane - the only pertinent fact is that in this day and age (and for MANY MANY years before that), “marriage” between a man and woman has highly sacred importance for many people, and that sanctity deserves to be respected. ALL religion is relatively new in the big scheme of things, so why according to you does this make them all irrelevant? YOU don’t have to agree with them, but you SHOULD respect them.

Besides, before “religion adopted marriage” as you say, HOW MANY marriages were between a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

Aramane says:

02:30pm | 18/02/10

Sorry Charles but religion adopted marriage, they didn’t create it, there’s not truth to the religious ‘sanctity of marriage’ so the religious have no right to claim that marriage is sacred and an gift of god. Do not be fooled into believing those would have you believe that marriage is a religious ceremony. Marriage existed before any particular religion adopted it and it is something that has been adopted by most religions so how can it be ‘sacred’ to any of them? The religious want you to believe that is something between a man and a woman and blessed by god, but the truth is marriage is and always has been, a pledge between two people to spend their lives together, and all that that entails - nothing more, nothing less.

Steely Dan says:

02:43pm | 18/02/10

“Tory and others who post appear to have forgotten that our constitution gives us the right to faith/religion without prejudice or discrimination.”
Just remember, Davo, the laws of the land include freedom of expression, and the freedom to have a LACK of faith.

And did you read the article?

Tim says:

12:53pm | 18/02/10

So Richard,
you admit you’re predjudiced against religious people but then go on to talk about the predjudice of religious people.
Hypocritical much?

Richard says:

12:40pm | 18/02/10

I’ll give up my right to prejudice against people who believe in invisible friends when their organisations give up the right to tax free status.  If I were to form a club for people who “believe” that they should have free beer, I wouldn’t get tax free status - why should religions?  It’s funny how it is always religious nutjobs who get upset when someone has a go at them but then are lightening quick to deny others rights such as marriage based on their sexuality.  What is it with Christians and their obsession with what goes on in bedrooms?  You don’t seem them claiming that anyone who has ever lied cannot get married - they are only worried about who you have sex with.  Personally I think the obsession Christians have with sex is both bizarre and amusing.

Shazza says:

12:13pm | 18/02/10

She’s not saying you can’t have faith.

marley says:

12:06pm | 18/02/10

I don’t think this article has much, if anything, to do with religion.  Nothing I know of in the Christian religion requires a bevy of bridesmaids or gaggle of groomsmen, or mandates a sit-down three course meal, or sets down the choice of music to be played, or insists that children be invited. This is about people trying to impose their own views of what a wedding should be on someone else’s ceremony.  And that is intolerant.  It’s also rude and ungracious.

Chris L says:

11:53am | 18/02/10

Davo are you commenting on the correct article? This was an opinion piece about people’s reluctance toward change, not an attack on religion.
By the way, Davo, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion without prejudice or discrimination. Peace!

J says:

11:56am | 18/02/10

@ James - $7000??  You’re absolutely right, that’s insane.

I’m going to Egypt later in the year for 2 weeks, $7000 is the holiday budget!

James says:

10:53am | 18/02/10

I will never forget the look on my professional photographer sister-in-law’s face when we told her that we did not want the “discounted” $7000 glamour wedding photography package she offered us for our wedding.  Instead, we asked my father-in-law to bring his camera.  As far as my s-i-l was concerned, we might as well have spit in the face of Jesus Christ.

VIcki PS says:

05:38am | 19/02/10

Good on you, Tory! No wonder you’re a bit teed off, though—how rude of your friends.  Strange how the pendulum has swung.  My elder daughter is getting married in 2 weeks and has opted for the full, “traditional” white dress and sit-down reception do, no kids (except for 4 in the bridal party).  She didn’t get her preferences from me—but nor is she expecting us to foot the bill, thank goodness!  But it’s all good, she is having what she wants and it’s a happy day, whatever.

Tory Shepherd says:

11:46am | 18/02/10

Hey, Vicki - actually I did do it myself, rented a house near a beach for a few days and brought everything in. The services I used were a part of the resistance, true, but that didn’t bother me nearly as much as the potential guests and also people who were not even invited sneering at my choices.

Toby says:

10:46am | 18/02/10

Unless you want a wedding and then you are not wasting a single cent!  Money is boring if you don’t spend it how you want.

Jay says:

11:08am | 21/02/10

6clegs - My mum wore green as well. That was in the mid 70’s and mum and her dress still look amazing in the photo’s.
Jec - Your folks are awesome, hope you’ve got a copy of the newspaper article!

jec says:

01:10pm | 18/02/10

My mother married an Anglican priest (my father) in 1960 and while she didn’t wear green she did wear a calf-length dress with green shoes, green gloves and a green hat.  She did not carry flowers, did not have a veil and did not have any attendants (they just had a couple of friends sign the registry).  This was radical for that era in a small country town, so much so the wedding made the front page of the local paper with the headline, “Bride breaks age-old traditions”.

Billygus says:

10:58am | 18/02/10

I appreciate your view. My view is simply - a weeding is a friends and family occasion and their age is not a factor:
I should clarify - if my kids didn’t know the wedding party - I wouldn’t expect them to be invited.

Trolldoll says:

12:21pm | 18/02/10

My sister gort married recently, children were invited. All the children were well behaved at the actual Wedding and at the reception bubble mix and water pistols were provided along with the usual things (I.E. food/drinkd, music excetera). the kids had a ball and some of the adults did too

Maria says:

10:53am | 18/02/10

The Children thing… How about if the parent wants to bring them to a venue flowing with alcohol - then they sit with them… an occasion like this is not to so other people can look after them!!! We had a no children please event and a few couples dumped their kids and went to the food and bar…. gate crashers are easier to handle….

AliceC says:

10:34am | 18/02/10

Not only is boredom on the child an issue. A friend of mine is getting married, and the venue wants to charge the same for children as they are for adults. $100 for a food and alcoholic drinks package! Not really value for money, especially considering how little children eat, as well as the fact THEY DON’T DRINK ALCOHOL!

k says:

10:05am | 18/02/10

well said ‘at work’. I can’t understand if the guest were a true friend of the bride or groom getting married - that they wouldn’t want the best day for them. Young kids especially are likely to get very bored in during most weddings…Why anyone would insist they be there when the couple had reqeuested adults only, is beyond me!

James says:

09:20am | 18/02/10

Its not only the bad behaviour either.  I can not imagine anything more boring than watching another person’s wedding, and I am nearly thirty.  Imagine how a child would see it.  Personally, when invited to weddings, if I can not find someone to watch my daughter, I just don’t go even if children are invited.

Tails says:

02:54pm | 18/02/10

Sorry. I hadn’t had my coffee yet and after yesterday’s childhood rant and the other week’s I hate parents rant, I kind of flipped. I just there’s a better way of expressing ourselves on these points. Instead of making sweeping generalisations, how about “well, this was my experience…is that common?” Then, when you open it up for comments, the comments add to the discussion instead of what we’ve seen in the last few weeks. I guess I’m just over reading invective from people who could be more informed (that’s not a stab at you Tory - it’s a stab at “some” of the comment submissions.

Steely Dan says:

02:29pm | 18/02/10

Tails, I had a very similar wedding to Tory’s, attended by friends and family who are generally up the hippie end of the social spectrum.  Ultimately having no white dresses (gasp!), exchanging of vows (Good Lord!) had everyone agitated, confused - and critical.  “Why did you do it this way?” was the concerned phrase of the day. Our answer (“Because we wanted it this way”) was never enough.  I think they saw it as a criticism of their weddings (or the weddings they plan to have).

Tory Shepherd says:

11:41am | 18/02/10

Tail, it just got me a bit worked up, is all, which may have lead to a bit of hyperbole

TheBigMicka says:

11:10am | 18/02/10

opinion piece Tails and Matt…and in my opinion it’s quite true, particularly when it comes to weddings.

Matt says:

10:23am | 18/02/10

Well said, could not agree more.

Isaac says:

07:49am | 27/02/10

@Steely Dan re. Code of Hammurabi.

The Scriptures of the Old Testament were reliably preserved in the Jewish Culture and document Jewish culture to a time before 1790BC. I’m certainly no scholar on these matters however, and so I shall refrain from making any further assertions.

But the real issue here is this: Christianity certainly doesn’t claim to have invented marriage – far from it. God asserts in His Word that He ‘invented’ marriage (perhaps we’re coming back to this question of revelation…).

Steely Dan says:

02:54pm | 26/02/10

@Isaac

“True, it predates Christianity, but it doesn’t pre-date the Old Testament which is inseperable from Christianity.”
The Code of Hammurabi has been dated to 1790BCE - over a thousand years earlier than the oldest Judeo-Christian manuscript.  Christianity has no special claim to being the inventors of marriage.  Chances are the Babylonians didn’t invent the concept either.

Isaac says:

02:21pm | 26/02/10

@SteelyDan:
Thanks again - i’ll get to offering my comments on the rest of it, but just thought i’d comment on the Code of Hammurabi first.

True, it predates Christianity, but it doesn’t pre-date the Old Testament which is inseperable from Christianity.

Steely Dan says:

10:45am | 26/02/10

@Isaac
Julian’s right - check out the Code of Hammurabi.

Steely Dan says:

10:41am | 26/02/10

@Isaac pt 2
“There is no science (to my knowledge) that documents or proves the possibility of new genetic material (and thus evolutionary process) appearing in any species.”
Genes can not only mutate, they can be duplicated – as exact copies of the original, or as mutated variants. 

“the position is still based upon the hypothesis that life spontaneously generated via natural (blind) forces. This is fundamental to evolutionary theory”
No, it’s not.  It’s fundamental to abiogenesis theory.  Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origins. 

“and yet cannot be observed now”
We wouldn’t expect that its possible in our atmosphere.

“ i) irreducible complexity”
IC is the argument from ignorance writ large.  A creationist wanders around, points to something and says “I can’t think of how that could have evolved! Must be magic!” Unfortunately for Behe et al, every time he’s tried this (eye, bacterial flagellum etc) he’s failed.

“ii) the gaping whole of a scientific documentation of the evolutionary path of homo sapiens.”
The fossil record isn’t a library of everything that has ever lived, Isaac.  And we’re yet to find a fossil that is incompatible with the theory of common ancestry.

“Again, it’s your ideas I’m attacking, not you. I’m a firm believer in the rigorous exchange of ideas.”
Ditto.

Dan

Steely Dan says:

10:39am | 26/02/10

@Isaac pt 1
“My point in clarifying the why behind your ethical approach was to highlight that it’s entirely relative/subjective.”
Without proof that there is some natural or supernatural objective standard, that’s how we have to do things.  You may claim an objective standard, but you offer no proof of it.  But the burden of proof is yours.  Until then, we look at the world around us and do what we can – we discuss, we debate, we observe and we learn from our mistakes when they occur.

“You can’t tell someone that is, for example, committing atrocities that what they are doing is wrong.”
Yes I can.  And unlike you, I can tell them how it is wrong.  You can only claim that you know of a supernatural power that has told you that something is wrong.

“Re. your agnostic atheist position, it seems you do believe in god. His name is empiricism.”
If insisting that evidence is important to believing something is somehow worship of a god – then call me the High Pope of Empiricism.  In the meantime, I’ll use the same terminology everyone else uses and call my self an atheist.

““Glad to hear you admit it.” – I find it interesting that you refrained from commenting on any of what followed.”
Why would I respond to beliefs you don’t want to give evidence for?

“A scientific investigation into the existence of God, and a scientific investigation into the origin of human life are two different processes.”
They should be indeed.  If you’re claiming to have reasonable evidence for God through the ‘science’ of creationism, then it would be interesting.  But as you’ve already said, your belief in god is not in any way based on empirical evidence.  I think that’s sufficient to conclude that your acceptance of creationism is not scientific, but religious.  This is yet another reason why I’m reluctant to discuss it with you.

“The fact that you’ve written off their science without looking at it tells me that you’re completely closed-minded on this matter.”
Believe me, Isaac, I’ve heard every creationist apologist pseudo-science out there, from Bauer to Dembski to Hovind’s ice shield and back. 

“Again, you demonstrate that you aren’t aware of the many practising Scientists who hold a Creationist position.”
I’m well aware, Isaac.  But I’m also well aware that they don’t get their stuff into peer-reviewed literature.  You no doubt think this is part of an Ben-Stein-style conspiracy.  I have yet to see a compelling argument that this is the case.

“Give me a shred of scientific evidence that supports your (and mainstream scientist’s) hypothesis that blind physical force results in anything like the order and information that is intrinsic to existence.”
Welcome to a concept called the ‘null hypothesis’, Isaac!  Empiricism is vital to the scientific process.  You no doubt agree that we can’t observe or measure the supernatural, so science works by refusing to make claims about the supernatural.  This is called ‘methodological naturalism’ (recognising that we can’t measure the immeasurable), which is distinct from ‘philosophical naturalism’ (which states that there are no supernatural entities).  Philosophical naturalism is not part of the scientific process, but is perfectly compatible with findings of scientific inquiry.  While methodological naturalism does not exclude the possibility of the supernatural entities, the lack of proof for supernaturalism means that the ‘null hypothesis’ (the position that in this case means you don’t assume something exists just because you are unable to conclusively say that it doesn’t) is employed.

Isaac says:

04:46pm | 25/02/10

@Julian:

“The institution of marriage was around a long time before it got hijacked by christianity”
Justify your claim.

I agree with your comments on Christmas and Easter.

All the best
Isaac

Isaac says:

04:44pm | 25/02/10

-  continued (second section) –

Despite your denial to address my arguments, you did actually (attempt to) address some of them, so I will comment on your responses.

Your thoughts (quoting mine):
“What I was meaning to say was that order and information (which is abundantly present in all of creation) can not result as a consequence of blind physical force.”
That’s your opinion.  Science does not exclude that possibility.
“And although you say that the atheistic worldview only tenets against the existence of God, surely by default it assumes that we (and everything) are the result of blind physical force.”
That’s right…”
Give me a shred of scientific evidence that supports your (and mainstream scientist’s) hypothesis that blind physical force results in anything like the order and information that is intrinsic to existence.

You said: “We can observe evolution as it occurs now (cue ‘micro’ versus ‘macro’ argument).” As I said before, the evolutionist position holds that genetic mutation introduces new genetic material – thus the evolutionary progress. There is no science (to my knowledge) that documents or proves the possibility of new genetic material (and thus evolutionary process) appearing in any species. 

You said (in reply to my comment):
“A scientific theory like evolution does not directly test its hypothesis per se and neither can it – given that that which needs to be observed occurred in the past.”
Incorrect.  We can observe evolution as it occurs now (cue ‘micro’ versus ‘macro’ argument).” 
Yours is a false accusation. To expound: Even if an evolutionist can observe evolutionary process now (which I’ve argued against in the preceding point), the position is still based upon the hypothesis that life spontaneously generated via natural (blind) forces. This is fundamental to evolutionary theory, and yet cannot be observed now, and has not been anywhere near close to scientifically demonstrated. Sounds like faith-based naturalism to me.

Arguments you did not address include i) irreducible complexity and ii) the gaping whole of a scientific documentation of the evolutionary path of homo sapiens. And as I said before, there are plenty more scientific findings that present serious problems for evolutionary theory.

Again, it’s your ideas I’m attacking, not you. I’m a firm believer in the rigorous exchange of ideas.

All the best,
Isaac.

Isaac says:

04:43pm | 25/02/10

My point in clarifying the why behind your ethical approach was to highlight that it’s entirely relative/subjective. Ultimately you can only say – ‘I think such and such (and perhaps the majority think such and such) is right’ or ‘I think we should act in such and such a way’. You can perhaps lay down what you perceive to be good and logical reasons (and perhaps they are good and logical) to behave in that way, but in the end you’ve really got no right to tell someone else what is right or wrong. You can’t tell someone that is, for example, committing atrocities that what they are doing is wrong. That’s not good enough for me. In your system, justice is ultimately an unfulfilled and somewhat wishful goal as well. That’s not good enough for me either. Not even to mention the concept of responsibility.

Re. your agnostic atheist position, it seems you do believe in god. His name is empiricism.

“Glad to hear you admit it.” – I find it interesting that you refrained from commenting on any of what followed.

“I’m not going to argue the scientific merits of creationism with someone who doesn’t believe in god based on any empirical grounds.  That would be futile by definition.”
Your argument is a non-sequitur. A scientific investigation into the existence of God, and a scientific investigation into the origin of human life are two different processes.

I find your continual refusal to even get into the ring on this issue (which should be a smack down with the way you’re talking about it) a weak excuse. And despite claims to the contrary, you continue to demonstrate ignorance that there is sound science occurring from PhD holding, recognised, practising scientists that makes many conclusions strengthening the creationist position.
You say: “But if you believe in something on faith alone, that’s not science.” The belief in God as well as the Biblical account of creation by faith (which Creationists readily admit is an aspect of our view on the matter) is not the same thing as the science produced by Creationists to verify their scientific hypotheses. Whereas the faith they profess cannot be scientifically tested, the science that they produce can. If it’s such terrible science, it should be no problem shredding it. And yet, most people are ignorant of it and refuse to even look at it.
Laugh as you may, my point in showing that website was to ask you to have a look at the book itself (I don’t necessarily endorse the website). The fact that you’ve written off their science without looking at it tells me that you’re completely closed-minded on this matter.

“Maybe some creationists aren’t anti-science, they just happen to be bad at it.” Again, you demonstrate that you aren’t aware of the many practising Scientists who hold a Creationist position. There is also a distinction between Creationists who are scientists, and Creationists who aren’t (as there are evolutionary scientists, and the rest of society which for the most part blindly accepts what they say – generalisation I know but I’m happy to stand by it for what it is)

-continued-

Julian says:

11:20am | 25/02/10

The institution of marriage was around a long time before it got hijacked by christianity. So was the solstice festival now known as christmas, and coming of spring that got shoe-horned into easter.

Steely Dan says:

10:56am | 25/02/10

“why do you think we should protect and respect life?”
I’m life, the people I care for are life, and the animals I care for are life.  I like having life around.  A society where life isn’t respected is dangerous to myself and the people and animals I care about.  Isn’t this obvious?

“You’ve qualified you’re belief in those intangibles by saying they are grounded in physical reality – can you please comment further on this relationship?”
Here’s a quick demo, just one over-simplified justification for non-theistic morality (the basis for secular governance, by the way): I don’t like getting hurt.  Pain is tangible.  It’s better for me (and for everyone else) to promote rules that stop others from attempting to hurt me, even if it comes at a price (ie. losing the freedom to hurt others).

“If you are agnostic, you’ve just made the switch from dismissing God to admitting that He may be possible.”
I’m an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism means you don’t have any knowledge claim on the subject.  It’s possible to be an agnostic theist (eg. you believe in god, but you can’t claim to know that one exists).  I don’t believe that I can know that there is no god (this puts me in the same category as Dawkins et al).  Atheism means that you don’t believe that a god exists, although it doesn’t exclude those who make the counter-claim (gnostic atheists, who would say that they know that a god does not exist).

“Let’s get clear that Christian’s aren’t primarily making a claim about God based on empirical process (which is what you seem to need to believe in God).”
Glad to hear you admit it.

“but your claim against the Creationist position was both arrogant and ignorant (I’m not attacking you as both those things, but to my eyes, the claim certainly was).”
Not ignorant, just openly arrogant.  And I’m not going to argue the scientific merits of creationism with someone who doesn’t believe in god based on any empirical grounds.  That would be futile by definition.

“If you want to read a book with credible scientific claims against evolution/for creation (even if its just to find out what us ‘whackos’ are saying) check this one out: http://creationwiki.org/In_Six_Days”
I’ve spoken to a LOT of creationists in my lifetime.  Just going to creationwiki is funny enough for me.

“A scientific theory like evolution does not directly test its hypothesis per se and neither can it – given that that which needs to be observed occurred in the past.”
Incorrect.  We can observe evolution as it occurs now (cue ‘micro’ versus ‘macro’ argument).  Maybe some creationists aren’t anti-science, they just happen to be bad at it.  But if you believe in something on faith alone, that’s not science.
Dan

Isaac says:

05:46pm | 23/02/10

@SteelyDan:
You’ve added ‘protect and respect life’ to your claim. I agree, but I can explain why I believe them. why do you think we should protect and respect life?
You’ve qualified you’re belief in those intangibles by saying they are grounded in physical reality – can you please comment further on this relationship?
@proving God comments:
So you are a (sceptical) agnostic? Let me explain: an atheist claims that God doesn’t exist implying a burden of proof to disprove God. A null hypothesis means that you don’t have a hypothesis on God (agnostic position). If you are agnostic, you’ve just made the switch from dismissing God to admitting that He may be possible.
@ my burden of proof:
Let’s get clear that Christian’s aren’t primarily making a claim about God based on empirical process (which is what you seem to need to believe in God). The Bible makes absolute claims on the existence of God (and as expressing His thoughts on all things), the responsibility of man to God, and the nature of all reality.
From a Biblical perspective: Given that God made everything and exists outside of it, it is sheer arrogance to suppose that one can find Him and make an assessment on Him based on empirical process. God made reality on His terms, and the nature of knowledge and relationship with God for man is revelational. He reveals Himself, we accept it. That is the Biblical claim. Our mental capacities are to serve under God, not to be god. The Bible says that anyone who says in their heart ‘there is no God’ is a fool (Psalm 14 v 1), it says anyone who does not submit to what God Himself proclaims to be the real state of affairs will be answerable for rebelling against their Creator (essentially the crux of rebelling against Him is disobeying what He has proclaimed to be right – thus we have all done the ‘wrong’ thing as it were; our consciences bear witness to this).
“Baloney” I hear you say. But the implications of all that for my burden of proof are this: From the Christian view, we’re not here to empirically prove God and get people to come to an acceptance of Him based on their own process of reasoning, we’re here to proclaim what God has revealed regarding the nature of everything and its implications for us. If you think the Bible is rubbish, that’s your business – but if I didn’t believe in the Bible, I’d at least take its universal claims seriously enough to read it and know why I didn’t believe it.
If you really want to get at Christians, that’s the place to start. So sorry to disappoint, but I’m not here to give you a scientific path to God – I’m here on behalf of God and His claims in the Bible saying that you are responsible to your Creator for everything you do, and you need to set things right with Him through His son Jesus Christ.
Crazy you say. Well I can at least understand from your perspective why you’d say that, but I believe that Jesus was telling the truth.
Re. evolution:
The debate was opened in the 19th century, not closed (although evolutionists are certainly closed for the most part now). Science has made astounding progress since then (which makes it even more remarkable that you seem to think that the debate finished back then), and many of the science-based arguments (not all were science-based) that I raised have emerged (based on new findings) since the time you claim it closed. If I’m wrong in my arguments shut me down, but don’t take the dogmatic highroad. I’ll respect a decline if you don’t wish to get into it here, but your claim against the Creationist position was both arrogant and ignorant (I’m not attacking you as both those things, but to my eyes, the claim certainly was). You don’t seem to be aware that a real debate even exists, and it does. For example: If you want to read a book with credible scientific claims against evolution/for creation (even if its just to find out what us ‘whackos’ are saying) check this one out: http://creationwiki.org/In_Six_Days
I dare you to read it (pick it up on amazon).

You also seem to be melding the concepts of science and scientific theory demonstrating that you aren’t aware of the distinction (feel free to correct me). Science requires a hypothesis on observable phenomena & the ability to test it. If the hypothesis can be tested and proved, it is accepted as science. A scientific theory like evolution does not directly test its hypothesis per se and neither can it – given that that which needs to be observed occurred in the past. It is a theory on what may have happened based upon what is currently observable. It’s not a matter of ‘science won’, both sides use science to attempt to validate respective theories. Creationists are not anti-science – which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Forgive me if I have come off as condescending in any of that, please clarify if I have misrepresented you.

All the best
Isaac

Steely Dan says:

02:33pm | 23/02/10

Woops - that should read 19th century.

Steely Dan says:

11:16am | 23/02/10

@ Isaac
“In other words: meaning isn’t there, just enjoy life.”
And protect and respect life.  Atheism does not mean hedonism.

“And you admit that reason, ethics, conscience, etc. are all metaphysical concepts that we’ve invented?”
Sure.  But intangibility does not make things illusory or arbitrary.  And any good concept must be grounded in a physical reality.

“And you think the challenge to theists is demonstrating that there is an answer to the question ‘does life have meaning?’ (i.e. prove God to me – the central tenet of atheism)
As an atheist, you presume that it doesn’t, just as I posit that it does (?)”
I don’t presume.  I can find nothing to support a positive response to that question.  Therefore the null hypothesis remains.

“I might then ask you that you need to prove that it doesn’t – disprove God as it were.”
The burden of proof is yours. You’re the one making the claim.

“What I was meaning to say was that order and information (which is abundantly present in all of creation) can not result as a consequence of blind physical force.”
That’s your opinion.  Science does not exclude that possibility.
“And although you say that the atheistic worldview only tenets against the existence of God, surely by default it assumes that we (and everything) are the result of blind physical force.”
That’s right.  Methodological naturalism (presuming that there is no super-natural world) is vital to the scientific method.

And I’m not going to dignify creationism with a response.  The arguments have been made before, and science won.  Call me an officer of the Darwinian Army of the Godless Communist Anti-Jesus New World Order if you like, but the debate on evolution finished in the 18th century.

Isaac says:

04:10pm | 22/02/10

@SteelyDan:
Just to get this clear:
So whereas I said that the atheist’s greatest challenge is justifying meaning, you would reply ‘we don’t need to justify it, it doesn’t exist and that’s ok’ (in the sense that I understand meaning as requiring purpose/intention). You would say that meaning (in the sense that you defined it) is sufficient. In the words of the prophets ‘Let’s eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die’. (You might find the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes interesting - seriously…)
In other words: meaning isn’t there, just enjoy life.
And you admit that reason, ethics, conscience, etc. are all metaphysical concepts that we’ve invented?
And you think the challenge to theists is demonstrating that there is an answer to the question ‘does life have meaning?’ (i.e. prove God to me – the central tenet of atheism)
As an atheist, you presume that it doesn’t, just as I posit that it does (?) (I might then ask you that you need to prove that it doesn’t – disprove God as it were).

No I did not mean to say that atheists can’t determine causality back to before the big bang etc. (although as you rightly say, nobody can in a strictly scientific sense). What I was meaning to say was that order and information (which is abundantly present in all of creation) can not result as a consequence of blind physical force. And although you say that the atheistic worldview only tenets against the existence of God, surely by default it assumes that we (and everything) are the result of blind physical force.

You’re quite right that my analogy does not strictly illustrate the evolutionary position – the point I was seeking to make (as opposed to making a complete refutation of evolution, which I was not in that instance) was the one I have just expounded.

But now that you raise the topic the mutation of biological entities and evolutionary theory – no I do not believe evolution to be accurate at all. I think it is an incorrect theory. To very very briefly extrapolate why (and I do not argue this as a scientist) i) it essentially argues that the order/information contained in creation is the result of blind physical force (the point I was previously raising - the naturalist position), ii) as a Christian who accepts the Bible as the Creator God’s revelation of authoritative truth, the Bible says God created us as people not as monkeys or a lower life form (most important reason in my experience), iii) the irreducible complexity argument, iv) there is no evidence to suggest that new genetic material can result from biological mutation (the centrepiece of evolutionary progress) – mutations are only the re-arranging of existing genetic material, iv) I would expect immense amount of evidence that accurately documented the transition from lower life form to homo-sapien. To my knowledge, there is none that is even close to convincing. v) the possibility of life resulting from non-life has never been even remotely proven as scientifically possible. There are others.

You’re quite right – you didn’t say that. My apologies. But I still think it’s too big a topic to broach here. My previous offer still stands.
Thanks for your thoughts.
All the best, Isaac.

Steely Dan says:

10:27am | 22/02/10

@Isaac

“From your worldview they are metaphysical concepts that we’ve invented – no real existence in themselves. That’s the only explanation an atheistic worldview can give me. That’s still a depressing take on it.”
Not depressing to me, that’s the main thing.  Referring back to your initial comment, there is nothing challenging about the non-issue of ‘meaning’ for atheists. What is challenging for atheists is trying to explain this to theists who look to answer the question ‘what is the meaning (purpose) of life’ without demonstrating that there is an answer to the preceding question - ‘is there a meaning (purpose) to life?’

“the atheistic view cannot adequately account for their existence”
Strictly speaking, the ‘atheistic worldview’ has only one tenet - that the existence of a deity/deities have not been established.  If you mean to say that I/other atheists cannot explain how/why we are here, tracing causality back before the big bang (if that is even possible), then you’re right, we can’t.  And I’d posit that neither can anyone else.  Speculation that a god must be the ultimate uncaused first cause is just speculation.

“Yet this is precisely the assertion of the atheistic/evolutionary worldview.”
Isaac, please don’t tell me you don’t accept evolution.  That’s what it sounds like at the moment. (By the way, faulty analogy - non-biological entities can’t mutate.  Your example is COMPLETELY at odds with the “atheistic/evolutionary worldview”).

“You say our consciences are rational”
No, I didn’t, have a re-read.

Isaac says:

05:26pm | 21/02/10

@SteelyDan:

Good pick up – biology is not illusory (clearly – although epistemologically speaking, an atheist can’t justify that – a discussion for another day). What I should have said (and meant) was that they are a biologically induced illusion – not biological per se. From your worldview they are metaphysical concepts that we’ve invented – no real existence in themselves. That’s the only explanation an atheistic worldview can give me. That’s still a depressing take on it.
That aside, we both agree that they exist at least – which is what led me on to say that the atheistic view cannot adequately account for their existence.

You’ve misunderstood my point in your second paragraph. Let me put it this way: if I told you that I’d saw a photocopier explode, and once the dust cleared I found a dictionary lying on the ground, you’d call me a fruit cake. Random, blind force does not instil matter with information (even if the material is present – in this case, paper and ink). Yet this is precisely the assertion of the atheistic/evolutionary worldview. The universe functions upon information, we are evidence in ourselves. The amount of information inside of us that allows us to function is staggering and incomprehensible to say the least. I’ll refrain from commenting on your following comment given that I don’t think it really addressed the point I raised.

You say our consciences are rational – I say that they are distinctly separate, but were designed to work together. I don’t think we can go any further on that one here though – to do so is to open a can of worms on the nature of ethics which is a huge topic. I’m happy to do that in another forum if you’re interested.
All the best,
Isaac

Steely Dan says:

01:04pm | 21/02/10

@ Isaac

“From your atheistic worldview – meaning/value/enjoyment in life (which we both agree is there) is no more than the biological illusion”
Biology is not illusory.  It’s tangible.

“Blind force does not create such perfect, amazing order and rich meaning.”
We’re hard-wired to like our existence (generally) and tend to be prone to see reality as the ‘straight-flush’ of possible outcomes - but this presupposes that WE are the ‘point’ to existence. We evolved to suit our conditions. This world is not perfect for us - we’re perfect for it.

“In my eyes, the two are different, but should be complimentary. Do you see a distinction between them?”
I do, but for the most part our consciences are rational. Our consciences are definitely fallible, and reason should always win out over instinct, if there’s a conflict.

Isaac says:

06:01pm | 19/02/10

@SteelyDan:
I can see your perspective on meaning (e.g. in the sense that my family means something to me), and agree that in that sense things have meaning for most. I certainly don’t doubt that you still enjoy and value life. When I speak of meaning, however, I see as intrinsic to the concept the presence of purpose. I think we’re both agreed that, by that definition, life has meaning in my worldview, but not in yours.
But to extrapolate on the meaning in the sense that you’re talking about it – in my eyes it comes down to this:
From your atheistic worldview – meaning/value/enjoyment in life (which we both agree is there) is no more than the biological illusion I referred to earlier. So are consciences, ethics, rationality and our understanding of everything else. That’s an immensely depressing reality in my opinion (in that, for example, all the things that seem so ‘meaningful’ to me are no more than a chance chemically induced occurrence that comes and goes but doesn’t even matter really),  but more than that, I don’t think it’s a view of reality which satisfactorily accounts for the existence of meaning (in the sense of your definition of meaning).
I just don’t see how an atheist can look at the order, the richness of what this thing called life is (the enjoyment and value and meaning that you speak of) and say: ‘it’s all a result of blind chance’. Surely, this life that we love and enjoy and treasure must have a cause that is equal to the effect that it is. Blind force does not create such perfect, amazing order and rich meaning. I would be completely unsatisfied with it as an explanation of reality.
Re. your second para: You seem to be defining your conscience as something which is purely rational. I think that our conscience is (or should be) a help to making ethical decisions – whereas our reason is what allows us to make logical decisions. In my eyes, the two are different, but should be complimentary. Do you see a distinction between them? I would just want a bit more clarity from you before I commented further.
I don’t think they’re magical or supernatural either – in my worldview they are another faculty that we have been endowed with as complete created beings.

Steely Dan says:

10:53am | 19/02/10

@Isaac
 
“What I meant was that the concept of meaning necessarily requires a) that which has meaning & b) the one who gave it meaning – when we seek to understand the meaning of something, we necessarily look to who gave it meaning.”
I give things meaning, Isaac. So do you, and so does everyone else. I don’t have to create something for it to mean something to me. Again, if you’re saying that meaning is equivalent to god-given purpose, then I don’t think we have meaning in that sense – but I can still enjoy and value life.
 
“The fact that you and others don’t live in strict accordance with pursuing your pleasure… just tells me that they aren’t living consistently with their view of the world OR they are simply afraid of the consequences of said action.”
I am afraid of the consequences of my actions in THIS life – so my desires must be filtered through a rational consideration of the situation (eg. my desire to have that new book for free loses out to my desire to live in a society where theft is discouraged, and my desire to feel the wind whistling past me at terminal velocity loses out to my desire not to be smashed onto the pavement). Consciences aren’t magical or supernatural, they’re vital parts of our cognitive functions that help us keep productive, safe societies.

Isaac says:

09:47am | 19/02/10

@Mel: your point?

Mel says:

06:34am | 19/02/10

“Many christians hold on to Pagan (or at least vaguely Pagan) forms and traditions, and dare I say values, with no real conviction about why - only a strong, somewhat vague, but ultimately unjustified urge to remain the same.” - works both ways.

Isaac says:

06:11am | 19/02/10

@Steely Dan: No, sorry Dan, let me clarify. What I meant was that the concept of meaning necessarily requires a) that which has meaning & b) the one who gave it meaning – when we seek to understand the meaning of something, we necessarily look to who gave it meaning. If we & creation have meaning, therefore, God must have created us. The alternative is that we have no meaning. I think I’ll leave that there for now – but only ask the question: how did meaning come about in a universe that has no meaning? How did meaning emerge from meaninglessness? It’s a big question with too many facets to keep pushing on with it here I think.
On the contrary, I don’t think atheists live in the fear of the possibility of God. It appears that they are often firmly convicted of their ways. But I know if I was an atheist, I would want to be quite certain that I was right, and I’d take the possibility of there being a God quite seriously. But everyone’s different. It’s not my job to change anyone’s mind – I’ve got my own life to live. And yes I’m certain of my convictions.
No, that’s not the only thing keeping from murder etc., I’ve got no desire to do any of those things you mentioned and think they are entirely wicked. My real point in making that statement was that the pleasures people desire are often inconsistent with many commonly accepted ethical principles, or even their own ethical convictions. The fact that you and others don’t live in strict accordance with pursuing your pleasure (which as I said may manifest differently in different people – for good or bad) just tells me that they aren’t living consistently with their view of the world OR they are simply afraid of the consequences of said action. That people such as yourself and others don’t do stuff like that, and even often desire to do good & positive things in the world (which I don’t deny) confirms to me that God gave you a conscience and that we are all created in the image of God (who is good) and retain a measure of that goodness despite the fact that as a race we reject Him.
All the best,
Isaac

Steely Dan says:

10:34pm | 18/02/10

@Isaac
“Is that a redefinition of meaning? Isn’t that just what meaning is?”
Where on earth did you get the idea that meaning had to be god-given?

“I believe that the fact that meaning is even possible (which it is), is one proof that God exists.”
Of course, if you think meaning is necessarily god-given, you’d probably come that conclusion.

“but if I were convinced that there was no meaning to life I’d be seeking to make sure I was right (searching for ‘God’ as it were).”
I am right, Isaac, but thanks for the concern.  Seriously, do you think all atheists live in fear of the possibility of a god? 
And have you made sure you’re worshipping the right god?

“If I sincerely believed it, I probably wouldn’t live for anything more than the immediate pleasure that I experience too – at any cost - and I wouldn’t let anybody inhibit my pleasure either (imagine what sort of a world we’d have if people really lived like that?).”
Doesn’t the fact that I and many others DON’T live like that tell you something? Are you really saying the only thing stopping you from casual theft, rape, murder etc is your belief in a deity?

If that’s the case, forget I said anything that might conflict with your beliefs.

Lord Blackadder says:

10:18pm | 18/02/10

A person who behaves ethically simply because they believe in an invisible sky fairy and fear its wrath is not a really an ethical person.

Isaac says:

06:26pm | 18/02/10

@Adam:  read Leviticus 18:22 (part of old testament law), and then read Matt 5:17-19 and let me know what you think. But you raise a good point, many Christians put far too much of an emphasis on homosexuality. But I still think it matters.
You’re right, we do have two different ways and opinions on the same reality (in the example of ethics), but we cannot mean the same thing in our analysis of ethics. They can’t both be right. From an atheistic position, you posit that ethics (which we both agree exist) are a social construction – in which case ethics are relative and do not objectively exist (only as a construct of the mind). From your perspective there’s no reason why I should listen act in accordance with ethics, even my own. From my Christian perspective (which you rightly guessed), God established morals outside of us – therefore they are objective. Wrong is wrong regardless of whether someone says it is or not. I’m not sure we can make more progress here.
Why Christianity? I could give (in my own experience) you every reason in the world and that wouldn’t be enough. My being a Christian involves reason, but is not based solely upon it. Basically, I think to know God, you can’t work Him out (he’s above the creation that He made) – when it comes to the Christian God, our knowledge of Him simply has to be revelational. That is, He has to reveal Himself to us. As far as I’m concerned, He has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ (read the gospels one day…). And He did say that if you ask him to reveal Himself to you that He would.
Why not another religion? I’ve analysed them and do not believe that they are inconsistent with themselves. Islam, for example, claims that Jesus was a prophet, but also claims other things that are inconsistent with Christianity. They are not different understandings of the same God, they worship two different Gods, and both can’t be correct.
Peace, Isaac.

@Steely Dan: Is that a redefinition of meaning? Isn’t that just what meaning is? (clarify if you wish) In which case you have agreed that existence has no meaning, and that meaning is a nonsense concept (otherwise how can meaning come out of non-meaning?). I believe that the fact that meaning is even possible (which it is), is one proof that God exists. I don’t doubt that you can and do enjoy your life, but if I were convinced that there was no meaning to life I’d be seeking to make sure I was right (searching for ‘God’ as it were). If I sincerely believed it, I probably wouldn’t live for anything more than the immediate pleasure that I experience too – at any cost - and I wouldn’t let anybody inhibit my pleasure either (imagine what sort of a world we’d have if people really lived like that?). Your life bro, all the best with it. Isaac.

Right, i’m getting dinner, i’m hungry.

Isaac says:

06:26pm | 18/02/10

@JK: JK, at last you’ve admitted that ethics and the meaning concept are an illusion from your world view. Can I take that one step further? If meaning and ethics are illusions created by the mind, isn’t reason just another creation of the mind? (being a conceptual construct). And if there’s no reason why I should listen to reason, why should I follow your line of thought? Why should I use rational thought to reach my ethical conclusions if both are a meaningless construct? Fair enough if you want to, but there’s no reason why I should follow that process. In your world view, I’ll do what I want and it won’t matter. Why would I empathise with other beings? It wouldn’t matter if I did anyway – I would just feel like I should.
On the contrary, from your worldview, I do fully admit that my deterministic creator would be an illusion. As it happens, I don’t believe ethics, reason, meaning, or God are merely conceptual constructs. I believe that they were all established by the Creator God who is truly real.  I believe the possibility of reason, ethics and meaning are arguments for the existence of God. You say we don’t need God to empathise, I would say it’s because of God that we do empathise.
I’m not familiar with the SS, but I wasn’t implying that all non-christians are responsible for the problems in the world – I’m implying that everyone has rebelled against God’s ways and that we are ALL responsible for the problems the world. I’m as much a part of the problem as anyone else. From a Biblical perspective, we actually all deserve to be struck down for disobedience (put simply: disobedience equating to evil, and obedience equating to good on every level). The amazing thing is that we can be restored to true liberation despite what we deserve for doing the wrong thing.
Again, you accuse me of stating that ethics is a by-product of religion. I’ll say again that ethics are not a by-product, they are immovable objective principles established by God at the foundation of the world. You’re right though, there is a lot of religious bloodshed and tyranny to explain – and there will be justice. It was the Creator’s plan to give us responsibility, it was us who abused that privilege.
All the best

Steely Dan says:

04:33pm | 18/02/10

@Isaac
“I make a car, it is meant to transport me. If the universe has no maker, and is a chance occurrence, does that not rob the universe and our lives of meaning?”
Only if you believe that meaning can only be bestowed by a creator. I don’t think that the universe was created with myself or humanity in mind. If you want to redefine ‘meaning’ to be exclusively god-given, then I don’t believe existence has meaning. But that doesn’t stop me from enjoying this life - and having only ONE life (no reincarnation, no heaven, no hell, no spirit realm) just reinforces how important this life is.

Adam says:

04:27pm | 18/02/10

If God thought it was THAT big a deal, surely his son would have mentioned it. Why in Romans after he died? If it was mentioned by Jesus, or before him (so that he could agree or disagree) I would say that it’s fair enough. But by coming afterwards it’s really no different to all the other church rules that have come and gone since, at least as far as I am concerned.
I understand the distinction you made, but I meant the same. I honestly don’t think that atheist and Christian morality come from different sources, which is why they are fundamentally the same - the needs of a community to survive (no murder, no stealing, solid family structures etc). Clearly we just have different ways of seeing the same thing (the similarity). If you are a Christian (pretty safe assumption) I just wonder, why Christianity? How is it any more plausible than Islam? Or Judaism? I suppose you could say they are different understandings of the same God and that it doesn’t really matter - that would be my answer - but if that’s the case I don’t see why people need to commit so heavily to any organised religion.

jk says:

04:26pm | 18/02/10

Isaac, you suggest that the idea of a meaningless universe reduces ethics to a biologically induced illusion. I’d probably agree, although I’d suggest that there are cultural and ethnological factors to said illusion. What you fail to acknowledge is that your belief in a deterministic creator being is exactly the same kind of illusion. Most conceptual constructs are. The difference we will probably fail to agree on is that I believe that positions on ethics and ethical response to the world around us can be made through rational thought. You seem to posit that this cannot be and that the only way to live well on this earth is to obey the commands of a being I do not believe exists.
Conscience has nothing to do with with being “created in the image of god”. It is based on our ability to empathise with other living beings and forms part of our evolutionary development. The suffering and cruelty you identify ought not be assuaged by the hope that one is living according to god’s ineffable will. I personally draw strength from the ability of humans to empathise with the hurt of one another. We don’t need god to do this.
You imply that people who do not share your belief and live according to the strictures you espouse are responsible for the problems in the world.  You also imply that those who don’t obey god’s word (or, indeed, the word of a caste of several-thousand-years-dead Judean priests) are the ones who are at risk of being struck down. I have to disagree.
As for the idea that “True liberation is living and enjoying life in terms of the way that we were created to do so”, I’m afraid that sounds a little too like a religious version of the Stockholm Syndrome for my tastes.
If ethics was some kind of by-product of religion then there are thousands of years of religious bloodshed and tyranny to explain. I doubt that was part of your creator’s plan. Or was it?

Isaac says:

04:24pm | 18/02/10

pps. philosophy is one of my hobbies….

Isaac says:

04:18pm | 18/02/10

*grins* I’m only ‘waffling’ cause it matters! Better to care too much than too little. Besides, it’s a good way to break up my day…
ps. i don’t believe your claims

God says:

04:07pm | 18/02/10

Isaac, reading your waffle I’m thinking maybe you have too much time on your hands.  Not enough meaning in your life maybe.  God says find some hobbies.

Isaac says:

03:59pm | 18/02/10

@ Adam: Adam, no, I don’t believe morality/ethics comes from religion, I believe that they come from God (thus moral values exist in themselves and are objectively true, not a subjective relativistic construction of people’s minds). My problem with atheists finding meaning in life ties in with my comments to steely Dan. I suppose it can depend on how you define meaning. I don’t doubt that atheists have meaningful experience – only that the concept of there being meaning to life itself as a nonsense from an atheistic view of the universe. With an atheistic perspective on morals, again, I don’t doubt that atheists have moral convictions, I would only say that the atheistic viewpoint can only explain morals as a subjective development of evolution. Under that view, there is no reason why I should be ethical, and no one can tell me otherwise. From my perspective, the Biblical worldview accounts for morals and meaning, the atheistic does not (but does make observations on them).
On your other note – read Chapter 1 of the book of Romans.

Isaac says:

03:48pm | 18/02/10

@ Steely Dan: I didn’t say reality was an illusion, I said the meaning in reality was an illusion if the universe is meaningless. To define meaning a little - meaning requires intention and purpose. E.g. When I make something, it has its meaning in terms of what I intended for it. If I make a car, it is meant to transport me. If the universe has no maker, and is a chance occurrence, does that not rob the universe and our lives of meaning? How can meaning come out of meaninglessness? Is not any meaning that we invent for our lives (which is real enough in our thinking) ultimately illusory and meaningless because we ourselves and the universe are meaningless?

Isaac says:

03:27pm | 18/02/10

@Richard,
Hi R, You have summarised my position (partially) – and I can completely understand your opinion that it is condescending. But Jesus himself claimed no less “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me”. The Bible does make absolute claims on the nature of reality (and it’s implications for all people) and is either an absolute lie and fabrication, or is true. I don’t particularly like to offend you or anyone else, but I can’t compromise on what I perceive to be truth just cause it’s offensive.
You say life is meaning enough in itself: I would ask you (and utilitarians) – on what basis do you make that claim?
You said: “Surely the good of your fellow human beings are reason enough to behave in a moral manner?” Well, if there’s no God, my previous arguments on the possibility of ethics, and an explanation of why good is good still need answers. Don’t mistake me, I certainly believe and strongly uphold the good of my fellow humans, but there needs to be a reason as to why we can understand this - why this is the case – otherwise, why should we do it?
I won’t comment on logical positivism (more thinking to do there…), but it just so happens that I’m currently studying utilitarianism, which I do not believe to be a valid approach to ethics. The following outlines my problems with it:
Utilitarianism presupposes that the greatest good for all is a good value in itself. My query is how does a utilitarian come to the position that the greatest good is good, if you can only test what is good/morally right based upon the consequences? Utilitarianism posits as its central thesis that moral right and wrong is solely determined by the greatest good for all in any given circumstance.
Therefore, if it is proved that a circumstance is not morally right in a circumstance where utilitarianism would state that it is (which is theoretically possible under utilitarianism) - does that not disprove the utilitarian thesis and discredit it as an ethical theory? My trouble is that it is theoretically possible for utilitarianism to call something right when it is wrong. I also have problems with the defining of happiness under the system (e.g. what if what makes someone happy is what brings pain to another? do you calculate the happiness of the villain and measure it against the pain of the victim and come to a result that is morally right?)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you would say everyone makes ethical decisions for themselves – from your perspective, what right then do you have to say that something is deeply wrong with me as you did?

Adam says:

02:39pm | 18/02/10

Isaac, you seem to believe that human morality comes from religion. I would argue that the opposite is true. Certain behaviours are good for the stability of a society and ensure those societies can continue - the rules therefore become a part of the religion. There is nothing particularly original or special about religious laws, and even the ones that some people consider inappropriate today were probably a good idea at the time. I don’t see there is any problem in atheists finding meaning in life either. The thing that I find amazing is when Christians bring up the meaning of life and human morality as problems with atheism, as if to say, “if there was no God, I would have no meaning in my life and no morals to live by.” Doesn’t that make your morality entirely shallow?
On a separate note, can anyone give me GOOD Biblical evidence as to show why Christians are against homosexuality? I am yet to see anything I would consider solid.

Steely Dan says:

02:23pm | 18/02/10

Sorry Issac, but I couldn’t let these slide:

“To me, if we’re in a meaningless universe, any meaning we invent can’t be anything more than an illusion”
How is our reality an illusion? Even if we ‘invent’ meaning, is our meaning somehow illegitimate or illusory unless granted special super-meaning by a deity?

“it appears to me that it is a very cruel universe too if this is the case”
Does believing that a god caused the cruelty you currently perceive somehow negate it?

Richard says:

12:47pm | 18/02/10

Isaac, don’t tell me I am negatively affected by not bein a Christian - that is incredibly condesceding not to mention both absurd and wrong.

I don’t need to “find meaning” - life is meaning enough in itself.  If that is not enough for you and you need something more I think that is a reflection of a deficiency in yourself.

Your thinking is incredibly confused - I suggest you look up logical positvism and utilitarianism.  Surely the good of your fellow human beings are reason enough to behave in a moral manner?  They are for me and I don’t believe in God.  If this is not the case or you then there is something deeply wrong with you.

Isaac says:

12:06pm | 18/02/10

Hi Cass & JK, thanks for your thoughtful replies to my comment! 
@Cass: I certainly wasn’t implying Tory’s wedding as being particularly Christian, I was speaking of society more broadly i.e. the convention of homosexuality being incompatible with marriage (as Tory raised that issue as being one of our conventions). You’re absolutely right – none of those things you mention are ‘biblical’, but the convention of marriage and a number of other aspects of our western society are rooted in biblical principles (although shifting a lot) and Christian tradition (which isn’t necessarily biblical).
You say you find meaning inside yourself, but if we live in a meaningless universe (as JK posits) how can meaning emerge out of meaninglessness? In a universe that is a chance occurrence and the result of blind physical forces – surely any meaning that is devised inside us can be no more than an illusion that doesn’t even matter.
@ JK: JK, you say that making ethical choices about your behaviour (on your own judgment) is what gives you or anyone meaning in their life – but I’d ask the same question: if we’re in a meaningless, uncreated universe, how can ethics be any more than a biologically induced illusion? If my ethical conviction is that I have the right to kill people (extreme example) – that’s my meaning and it’s not wrong. I might get stopped, but no one can tell me it’s wrong. And yet, because we are created in the image of God, we know it’s wrong (conscience).
To me, if we’re in a meaningless universe, any meaning we invent can’t be anything more than an illusion – it appears to me that it is a very cruel universe too if this is the case – except it couldn’t be cruel, because cruelty doesn’t exist, it’s just a concept we’ve invented.
I would have to say also that you have presented an inaccurate picture of the Christian position on ethics/conduct/meaning too.
I would argue that given that God created everything, all things have their meaning in terms of His purpose (just as the things we create only have meaning in terms of what we created them for). True liberation is to live in the context and meaning which He (who is all together good) has established. Just like a fish is best suited to water, and dies when it is taken out of its natural environment, so too when we live and act out of accord with God’s purpose for His creation we are negatively effected in the same way (thus the problems, pain, suffering and destruction in the world at large).
So no, I don’t live in fear of being struck, I know for a fact that I won’t be struck (just like anyone else can if they listen to what God has said and obey…).
True liberation is living and enjoying life in terms of the way that we were created to do so. Thus marriage (for example) is not some convention that I followed cause someone spoonfed it to me, or because I feel like it’s got meaning for me, or because I’m a victim of my biological makeup, marriage is all that it is in the sense that it is one of the good gifts that God has ordained for us.
God is much more than a sky being looking to zap everyone, as you put it JK. As Paul the Apostle said, ‘In Him we live, and move, and have our being’ (whether we acknowledge it or not…).
That’s my take on the world you are, of course, welcome to disagree!
Cheers,
Isaac.

jk says:

11:06am | 18/02/10

I don’t think finding meaning in life is atheism’s challenge, Isaac. I think that is entirely up to the individual. That’s what comes of being a rational human being, the freedom to make ethical choices about your own behaviour in a meaningless universe and thereby create meaning in your life. It’s actually quite liberating living in a world without magical sky beings watching your every move, standing by with thunder bolts and ligtning to strike you down for transgressions against conventional thought or deed.
You’re free to give it a try some time.

Cass says:

10:38am | 18/02/10

Isaac, is it a bad thing that we atheists need to look deep inside ourselves to find meaning in our lives instead of having the ‘answers’ spoon fed to us, leaving no room for questioning or interpretation? I’m also not sure which aspect of Tory’s wedding you think was particularly Christian—last time I checked, there was nothing in the Bible about white dresses, three course meals (or lack thereof) or civil celebrants. Most people who get married these days don’t do so in a church, and if they do it’s likely to be a church with which they have no prior relationship, seeing as only 8% of us attend regular religious services. Anyway, good luck with your marriage Tory!

Jay says:

10:59am | 21/02/10

I totally support the choice of no kids. To put it simply, it’s annoying to have kids at weddings. Hearing them crying and whinging through the ceremony/speeches, is infuriating. Best left at home.

Rod says:

11:40pm | 19/02/10

I’ll invite my friends. Just because my friends have kids, doesn’t make their kids my friends. Billygus, you wouldn’t be my friend anyway. My friends wouldn’t decline an invitation simply because their childfen weren’t invited. They are a bit mor mature than that.

fay says:

03:49pm | 19/02/10

I dont attend weddings because children of a certain age are not invited. Fair call, even if they were invited why would i spend a whole night chasing around after them. At an event mind you I was only invited so i can give them the gift of money, because no presents are allowed! I’ll save money by doing something interesting with my kids, rather than watch adults make fools of themselves, fat chicks hitting the dance floor when seriously they should just take a seat! Drunk men acting like idiots. And worse of all having to watch the bride and groom acting love sick all night. no thanks and thank god for the no children allowed. saved me heaps.

loxy says:

12:03pm | 19/02/10

Billygus, I don’t think Tory was trying to suggest choice doesn’t go both ways. She was simply stating that she won’t be having kids at her wedding, which is quite a common thing these days. I am getting married in just over 2 months and we also have a no-children rule which we have applied to absolutely everyone including my neices, the oldest of whom is 13. Not allowing my nieces raised some eyebrows, however while some people view weddings as a family affair, I view it as an adult affair. I don’t wish to have badly behaved and bored kids at my wedding, not to mention the added costs to host them.
If anyone is unhappy with our rule then they can choose, as you have, to not come - pretty simple

Leah says:

07:17pm | 18/02/10

Tory: half your excuse for not having ‘children’ at your wedding is that they’re teenagers who’ll eat all the food, but then you go on to talk about dangers associated with pools?

I also think Bella Starkey has a very valid point. When I got married, our youngest guests were my cousins and surrogate cousins (between the ages of about 8 and 13). There’s also not much chance of a fifteen year old boy (my brother was 15 when I got married) eating more than a 22 year old guy - and I’m sure you wouldn’t hesitate to invite a 22 year old friend.

I think people should warrant invitations due to their importance in your life, not because of how much they might cost you. There was no way in the world i was leaving out my cousins or my dad’s best friend’s kids (my dad’s best friend and his family have been like a surrogate aunt/uncle/cousins), especially because the families had to travel over 1000km to be at our wedding. They’re also at the age where they could look after themselves and you didn’t have to worry about them sticking their fingers in the candles. The kids didn’t cause an ounce of trouble. In fact the ten year old took some fantastic photos.

Of course I did have guests there who have children and I didn’t invite their children - mainly because it was the parents who had impacted my life, not the kids.

MJ of Brisbane says:

11:41am | 18/02/10

Children will not be invited to our wedding, end of story. We compromised for the engagement party and it was a disaster, plus all the guests who had kids went home early anyway.

Sorry if your children are one of the few who behave themselves, and apologies again if you are a parent who keeps an eye on your child, but it just didn’t happen at the engagement party, so won’t be happening at the wedding. Will make it easier though - we are having the wedding on a Friday morning, so will be easier for parents to arrange alternative options for kids.

Tory Shepherd says:

11:39am | 18/02/10

There’s also a cost and a babysitting consideration - you get a bunch of teenagers and they can hoof through the food like no one else. And they’re probably old enough to be left home alone. For us there was also a safety consideration with a lot of the action taking place around the pool, inside the fence, the chances of broken glass, etc.

bella starkey says:

09:07am | 18/02/10

I don’t know. I think that children who are related to you should be invited but friends kids can stay at home.

When i was about 11/12 a bunch of my cousins got married and me and my siblings weren’t invited even though our other couins were (we are a lot younger than them, parent’s married late).

Now all i feel is resentment towards them and it makes me mean to thier kids.

Andy says:

12:36pm | 22/02/10

Have what wedding you have. My God is a God of LOVE peace and charity and its beautiful. I feel beautiful and these posts dont stand to me for anything other than being superficial and feeling the crave to change. Change is ok to me, sure, many people can change things in their lives for the better, I dont like matching socks. But I do like the fact I feel great and guided through this confused careless superficial society. it scares me not about change, but about what people feel is important to them these days. But so it is.
Paul wake up from your happy place of cloudy fantasy land and stop thinking you lived 2000 years ago fool. I hope you change for the better.
May God bless you.

Paul says:

01:05pm | 19/02/10

Well said T.Chong.
People crave the belief in a god because they are desperate to give their little lives some sort of meaning and phychological meaning. Of course the idea in god just clouds their vision from reality.
The idea of god is for drones that are incapable of thinking for themselves adn beleive the same old dogma they’ve been conditioned with from a young age.
So sad.
Hey people, grow up…..and realise you don’t need such fantasy.

Dances By Moonlight says:

07:54am | 19/02/10

My wedding and I’ll invite whoever I GODdamn want to my day.

I need God to be part of my wedding day, but I don’t need her at anyone elses. Stuff the people who tell me to include, not include or ‘replace’ my diety with someone elses. Not their day, not their choice. Simple.

But it does make me wonder, if gay people can’t get married because it’s against the institution of marriage (in the Christian context) then why are athiests allowed to get married? Why is anyone who’s not Christian allowed to be married? Seems wrong to deny someone the right to a ceremony just because of their sex, when you allow the same ceremony to others who don’t believe in the constructs around it.

Bob says:

01:52pm | 18/02/10

Oh, same as god, then.

T.Chong says:

11:41am | 18/02/10

Only as a salve for my guilt ridden conscious.

Bob says:

09:34am | 18/02/10

You believe in karma? Why? There is no proof for it any more than for god.

Hopium says:

03:18pm | 25/02/10

I think I love you.

Terry is my hero.