de-conversion

414 Comments Add your own

• 1. Stephen  |  July 3, 2007 at 5:36 am

  Please don’t ask me to read your holy book with an open mind.

  Sure I’ll read it with an open mind, but not with an empty head.

  Actually about the hardest thing one can attempt is getting evangelical Christians to read their own holy book with an open mind. They “know” that Isaiah 7:14 is a prediction of the coming of Jesus, though if you read the whole of chapters 7 and 8 with an open mind it quickly becomes obvious that it is nothing of the sort. They “know” that the second half of Hosea 11:1 (yes, half a verse) is a prediction of Jesus’ flight into Egypt and are quite unable to read the whole chapter (let alone the rest of Hosea) with an open mind.

• 2. dphodgson  |  July 3, 2007 at 6:08 am

  As a Christian priest (Church of England) I do not invite people to read the Bible in order that the truth of the Christian vision of life might be proved to them.I agree with what you say about circular arguments. Sounds like most of the Christians you are talking to are as locked into a positivist/empiricist approach to reality as you may be. I invite people to read the Bible in order that they might have some experience of what the Christian vision of life is. If what they read in the Bible inspires them and opens new doors of understanding for them that’s great - if not, so be it. Christian faith as a life-giving and ultimately life-saving vision of reality cannot be proved logically apart from personal experience. It is entered into through the awareness of others’ experiences, of which the Bible is the normative expression for Christians

• 3. crankyfilipino  |  July 3, 2007 at 6:48 am

  I like how dphodgson tries to slip in some Bible promotion quietly. I also find it funny he says that you are “locked.” It’s true that with circular logic and reasoning you just look plain ridiculous. I really enjoyed reading this posting of yours and look forward to reading more. I’ve already done a thumbs up for this post in stumble and I’m going to bookmark your site. I find your writing style easy to read and persuasive. It’s like listening to you talk, instead of reading a boring essay. I myself am an Atheist and quite ironically I’m married to a Salvation Army christian. It’s a very interesting adventure. We argue every once in a while but all in all we try to keep religion away. The reason I have to do that, is because like you say, they say have an open mind but they don’t really have one. What they really mean is, have a mind like mine, and that ain’t gonna happen. =)

• 4. Chris  |  July 3, 2007 at 7:53 am

  Came across this on StumbleUpon so thanks to the above commenter for thumbing it!

  I agree that you can’t come to a belief in God JUST by reading the Bible.

  The only way to become a believer is to either be brought up in the faith so that it shapes your world view or to have an experience that you attribute to God that you feel validates his existence.

  Jesus was a way to experience God first hand and he made believers of those who experienced his teaching and his supernatural powers. The difficulty people have now is that there is no longer a ‘face’ to ascribe these experiences to.

  If you follow a religion or read the Bible without the experience of God then you may as well not be a believer.

  The problem is with people being unable to reliably and consistently determine what is right and wrong and putting their own interests above those of others. Each religion represents an attempt by a group of people who have recognised this and tried to address the problems of their culture but there comes a point when a religion transcends its origin and becomes self-perpetuating. Then it becomes something that God would not recognise. Jesus was anti-religious too.

  A true christian is someone with a living faith that puts their belief into action in a way that isn’t self-serving and is non-judgemental. Its a balance between meeting the needs of others and meeting the requirements of God. An impossible task.

  I have a faith in God but not necessarily the Church. I’ve seen too many people become unquestioning robots who don’t think for themselves. I don’t think God appreciates mindless followers I think he wants to be questioned so that he can start a dialogue. God isn’t Supernatural as if he is divorced from his creation, he is as integral a part of it as anything else so it is very natural to assume his existence. Just because we can’t comprehend him fully or in part doesn’t mean he isn’t there.

  Apologies for going on about this on your blog as I know your opinions are different to mine and you’ve probably found peace with them but I hate being lumped in with unthinking religious followers without there being a recogniton of the fact that there are still plenty of people who have a belief but that get on with it quietly just trying to change the world one person at a time, starting with ourselves.

• 5. Samma  |  July 3, 2007 at 8:01 am

  It’s the easiest thing in the universe. If you get to analize every other religion in the world, the premises they work with are simple and common to them all (but for D):
  A)Be a good fellow and procure your own salvation
  B)You’ll do so, firstly, being good with yourself and with god
  C)And to others
  D)Doing what we tell you to.

  And in most cases, D isn’t a panegyric to masochism or sadism as many intend to understand it. The conclusion it’s so, derives from assuming that some cultural axioms are implied in such and such a text. And it’s not so.

  Jesus Christ came simply to add an eleventh command: “love others just like you love yourself, and act consequently. C’mon, piece of cake… independently of you believing in him being god or not, you can’t say that he was saying a dooming sentence, or that it’d harm mankind at anyrate…

  Off the point, I’m sorry.
  Ok, so most religions in the world say the same thing, and most atheist people say, with a reasoning as valid as those given by religious people, Religion first started as
  A) A response from fear to deal with death
  B) A notion that this world fits us so perfectly that it has to be made for us. (Look for Douglas Adams in Youtube, Choose the one that pictures him and his birth and death dates)

  Well, for me, the first one it’s acceptable, the second one is acceptable too, though egotistical…

  Those who’ve said that you should read the bible as an explanation to christian god’s existance and accountability… Well, I think most of them were blindfolded or arrogantly ignorant of how to really deal with the situation of confronting you to their “real god”.
  Which is actually quite incredible, being as there is so many books that explain god’s existance with non circular arguments.
  But, they’ve referred you to a book that doesn’t give logical explanations, but a testimony (or many) of things that happen written down by people who saw it (I’m talking mainly about the new testament).
  I’d guide you, if I were to convince you that god exists, through Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. The introduction is a “brief” summary that explains why god has to exist…

  To you consolation, Jorge Luis Borges, considered to be the second or third greatest thinker of the spanish speaking world, loved to read the bible and the referred Summa Theologica, but he was never convinced of god’s existance. He said that theology and religion were “the most perfect expression of Fiction”, and therefore he devoted so many hours to its study.

  Me, well I believe in god, For a matter of culture, in the christian god, but in a heretic kind of way: though I think that what it’s said in the bible is true, I can’t really see my god any different from anybody who thinks that god is one.
  Kind of easy: I say that god is one and allmighty. Somebody else says so too, and we go on on oh so many notes that this god has…

  If A=F and B=F and C=F and D=F, being F the description and definition of god, eternal, allmighty, simple, one and perfect; then A=B=C=D; my god, jews’ god Islam’s god, Christian god and Wiccan god it’s the same god. The hierarchy, the Sephirots and whatever comes under him it’s concluded from some unclear little verses, too ambiguosly stated to take as a reference…

  Off the point…
  To read a non circular explanation of god’s existance, read Summa Theologica, Introduction, 5 ways to know god.

• 6. ltb  |  July 3, 2007 at 8:08 am

  From your post:
  I don’t believe it. I will admit that I haven’t read the entire Bible. (paragraph 4)Since you have not read it, the statement that you don’t believe it must be an assumption, since it is not based on experiment.
  By reading your Holy Book, I will only learn a bit about your brand of mythology. I won’t come to believe it. (paragraph 3)But you have already concluded without experiment that you will not believe it. Now, we may be charitable and call it a hypothesis, or we may may return to the beginning of your post:No matter how bumpy the road, if I can trace your logic from your conclusion back to your conclusion, it’s circular.

• 7. Cornerstone  |  July 3, 2007 at 8:12 am

  Very interesting discussion.

  By the way: A christian is any person who think that Jesus Christ, that son of a carpenter little jew, was god.
  Not “the son of god” but god himself, not the cousin of god either. Hitler was a Christian because he did -or claimed to- think that. I’m gay, awful sin to god’s eyes, and yet I do think Jesus was God.

• 8. Amy Williams  |  July 3, 2007 at 9:26 am

  Um this is a very long speech. I like it but. Make it shorter I don’t know. Do what you want. It seems interesting though. The cirular reasoning thing was kinda funny. I liked how you explained it in the beginning!

• 9. feliza  |  July 3, 2007 at 9:38 am

  Awesome pic of “circular reasoning.”

  What does this tell you? It tells you that I’m not close minded for not reading assuming your conclusion in order to assess your conclusion.

  Great point here. Given, I don’t know anymore about the Bible than has been crammed down my throat as a child, however it really is frustrating when someone tells me that I don’t have an “open mind” just because I’m not willing to convert.

• 10. E_Henry  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:07 am

  It is not necessary to read the Bible in its entirety to refute it, however if it is predominant in your society you would do well to give it a quick scan at least.

  If you really want to hammer the book into the ground, ethically, morally and scientifically, simply read “Deuteronomy”. You’ll find that is sufficient to help almost anyone dismiss the Bible.

• 11. BlameitonRio  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:10 am

  Do I know all the answers? Neither do you! Is the latest consensus of knowledge we call scientific understanding true? No, or yes, but maybe. Welcome to life. I find mortgaged religion primarilly political, probably even completely political. Rarely theological. I find most of the regailed sages of history, whom I admire, though to be against such closeted use of the human mind. The discussions by these people, written down because I can’t unfortunately listen directly, is filtered, abused and maybe even sometimes wrong. Are they madmen? I hope not. Could they be? Of course. But just because I know Dr. Who is a story, I like to think the universe is full of life. Do I know? No! and neither do you. and neither does any scientist outside of Stargate command.
  Science actually knows very little, and it surmises a lot. Theology knows actually even less. That, to an open mind should not make them an object of scorn. But to an enquiring mind it should encourage you to more discovery, or are you already dead? Scoffers are unintelligent sorry excuses for the fundamentally fearful. To not believe, or rather entertain the possibility of more, of anything, is just sad. Don’t use the failings of historical theological policy to justify what may exist. From what I read most of the better parts of most of the writings which entertain Supreme Being possiblities also suggest strongly that you can believe what you like. Most of it is to provide a means to move beyond fear, remembering that politicians (read priests) love fearful people. I rather see in the night sky, and in good heroic people working against the odds, that there may be more to the story than I have inherited or been told. At least that’s what science tells me.

• 12. Jack Dangers  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:21 am

  1. “Hey mannnn, you don’t need the bible, just some amorphous personal experience that you are willing to only explain through fairy-power…” Why would you attribute your experience to “god” instead of tree spirits? You just choose the Christian bible to be the source of your explanation though you couldn’t pin down much beyond psychedelic revelation?

  2. Thomas Aquinas Summa as proof????!!!?!?! It’s an infinite regress or begs too many questions. The unmoved first-mover is proof? Hey - you can’t explain physics in the 13th century, therefore, Christian god and hence bible law? Come on. That’s not intellectually honest.

  3. If you redefine your gods outside of the holy books and with vague bumper sticker slogans, again what god are you talking about? God is the number 1481. Disprove that. HA God exists! See orbiting teapot or flying spaghetti monster.

  4. As far as needing to read the whole bible to not believe it. I know enough of it and about it to not believe it. You don’t need to drink a gallon of piss to know it’s not good to drink.

  You have to be open minded to deny religion. You have to be open to looking at all the fallacies. As the author is stating, you have to be closed off from honest review to blind yourself from accepting that it’s all a sham. A great, historical sham, but just a sham.

• 13. Sarah-chan  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:28 am

  I like almost all of your essay, I really do. Still, you seem sort of young-ish maybe? Most of this is nice and straight forward, but at one point you almost started to ramble and it became hard to understand.

  “Please don’t ask me to read your holy book with an open mind. I can describe my mind as open, but not so open that my common sense fails me. Don’t you see? There’s a fundamental flaw with this request, and it’s staring you right in the eyes. There’s a huge elephant in the room, and yet you close your eyes to it! This is the assumption that a holy book can somehow validate itself.”

  Something about this paragraph caused a problem with me. Sorry I couldn’t be more helpful. Still, good job, I’m glad you made the point about how we don’t need to read the book to understand the religion completely.

• 14. Bernd  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:33 am

  If someone needs some proof, that christianity is a very dangerous and destructve religion, just read the Bible. You’ll find God ordering: Human sacrifice, mass rape, genocide…… If you need to find the right pages of the Bible look here: http://www.evilbible.com

• 15. 2ndlearningjourney  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:39 am

  Just wondering if you’ve read The Case for Faith yet? An ex-atheist journalist goes all over America to find thinkers who are also christian to answer some of the toughest objections to christianity. There is a chapter where they put the bible’s authenticity to the test. Apart from the bible they did use other external sources too.

• 16. Bernd  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:48 am

  Forgot to tell: I grew up in a very christian, german family and am married to a devoted christian wife. I have interesting discussions with the parson of her church who became a good friend of mine, and I’m living in Brazil surrounded by christianity and violence….which made me think a lot about religions. I think John Lennon was right: Only if we abandon all religions, we can have peace!

• 17. BlameitonRio  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:48 am

  Say God, vengeful, personal and angry did exist. A big fairy if you will. Say this fairy wants love, knows its better than what you have got. After all the fairy exists. Could that fairy get close enough to communicate to someone who doesn’t know how to love? Ever tried to reason with a drug addict why its wrong to sell his grandmothers house from under her? Good luck. Say that fairy also knows, like you do, that the drug pushers, (even other users) don’t like all this talk of freedom from drugs.

  If darkness is all there is then drugs is the way to go maaannnn! But explain to me please why there is light in the darkness? Why has space got stars and galaxies? Is the universe expanding? Why do good people exist? Why do they care? Don’t pejoritise people who try their best as ignorant, closed minded. Most of them know the fallacies and failings but don’t find they can easily call God crap because of it. Give people who still live by faith of some sort some credit. And also ask the question why so many of these basically decent people still try every day to avoid the security of dark unthinking fundamentalist ‘knowledge of the truth”.

• 18. rationalpsychic  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:52 am

  Where are all the Buddhist respondents? Buddhism is a philosophy which is more experiential in nature. Yes, there are texts to read, but none required unless you want ordination in one tradition or another. It’s about your experience in meditation trying to find stillness for your mind.

  Just putting that out there as an alternative to the credal, “required text” theory of most other faiths.

  rathionalpsychic.wordpress.com

• 19. dylan  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:56 am

  Asking you to open-mindedly read something is not circular reasoning. You don’t have to already believe in something to test it’s validity. In fact, you shouldn’t already believe in it.

  “I can’t find out if the premise is true by assuming the premise.”

  No one is asking you to when they suggest you study the Bible. Your example of circular reasoning is correct, but it’s irrelevant to reading a holy book with an open-mind and objectively looking for truth.

  Your concern and frustration are warranted, but your rant is off mark, poorly focused, and illogical. You don’t need the Bible to understand the nature of god, but attacking it under the guise of objective investigation is useless and distracting.

• 20. Tim  |  July 3, 2007 at 11:06 am

  This post makes several perfectly valid points.

  I think the biggest issue for Christianity today can be summed up with a quote from Ghandi: “It’s not your Christ that I have problems with… it’s your Christians.” Given how little (positive) difference the world can see between non-Christians and Christians, why should non-Christians bother reading any “holy book” if they don’t see something in the life of the theist that seems beneficial?

  It’s rather like the iPhone hoopla (and I’m a fan of Apple products). Show people a concrete way that the iPhone improves their day-to-day life. If you can, then they *might* look into buying it, but don’t ask ‘em to go wait in line at the Apple (or AT&T) store for 6 hours to buy something simply because Steve Jobs says it’s “insanely great.”

  Likewise, until Christians (me included) can visibly demonstrate something of value about their faith experience, a non-theist would be acting irrationally to give Christianity a second thought. People have seen the TV charlatans, read the tracts, and then watched the lives of “Christians.” Is it any wonder the reaction is “nothing to see here… move along”? - Tim

• 21. Bernd  |  July 3, 2007 at 11:21 am

  Read the Bible!
  e.g.:Judges 11:29-40

  “At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, “If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

  “So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. “My daughter!” he cried out. “My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back.” And she said, “Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin.” “You may go,” Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah’s daughter.” (Judges 11:29-40 NLT)

  It’s insane !!! How someone has the courage to call this a “Holy Book” ? And how can Christians call their God “loving and merciful”?

• 22. Noadi  |  July 3, 2007 at 11:51 am

  I wasn’t going to comment until I got to Bernd’s last comment. I have read the bible, every page of it and more than once. I studied Medieval History in college and there’s no way to understand that period of time without reading the Bible, the Apocrypha, and many of the major writings of the time like Thomas Aquinas. I have a fascination with mythology anyway, so it’s fun to compare and contrast it with other mythologies such as Greek or Norse.

  As I read through it completely for the first time my first reaction was pretty much “How could anyone believe this?” and the second one was “There’s no way most Christians have actually read this completely and thoroughly.” It’s passages just like that one which just appalled me, and totally put to a lie the whole loving god argument since what good loving god would require the killing of a young child or many of the other horrible things he commands in the Old Testament.

  It’s not that I find no value in the bible at all, much of what Jesus says in it about how to live and treat others is very admirable. I live my life very much on the principle of treating others I want to be treated but not because Jesus said so, but because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t need a holy book to tell me how to live a good life or be a kind loving person, if I needed a book to tell me that in order to do so what would that say about me?

• 23. Tom  |  July 3, 2007 at 12:00 pm

  I was going to argue against dylan and his, ‘You don’t need the Bible to understand the nature of god,’ statement, but I think I agree.

  I would say you are better off not reading the bible and believing only what you are told to believe. This is what most christians do. They go to church or bible study where select passages are read to them and they nod their heads. They are fed a bunch of Pollyannaish rubbish about how great and loving god is, and leave out all the yucky stuff.

  The gospel of thomas was written in 149 C.E. but was left out of the book. I’ll leave you with a quote from that kooky Jesus and his pals.

  114. Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.”

  Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

• 24. David  |  July 3, 2007 at 12:01 pm

  This circular logic problem is dealt with very effectively, and amusingly, in Kissing Hank’s Ass - http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

• 25. grant czerepak  |  July 3, 2007 at 12:43 pm

  What the most popular religions of the world offer us is a belief that the universe is an orderly system, advocacy of reciprocity and a set of norms for social conduct within which reciprocity is judged. The rest is baggage.

• 26. Stakhanov  |  July 3, 2007 at 12:43 pm

  I loved the comment about not having to drink a gallon of piss to know it isn’t good for you. It always amazes me that Christians and other theists will tell me that by not reading the entire Bible, I am not allowed to have an opinion or not believe in their brand of religion. Few and far between are the theists well versed in any holy book besides their own….these same Christians and the like, love to criticize Islam and other religions….yet I doubt many have read so much as a verse in the Qur’an…

• 27. Nick70  |  July 3, 2007 at 12:47 pm

  Please don’t ask me to read your holy book with an open mind. I can describe my mind as open, but not so open that my common sense fails me. Don’t you see? There’s a fundamental flaw with this request, and it’s staring you right in the eyes. There’s a huge elephant in the room, and yet you close your eyes to it! This is the assumption that a holy book can somehow validate itself.

  If the Bible were simply one book then you might have a point, but seeing as how it is 66 (if we accept the Protestant canon) or 73 (if we accept the Catholic Canon) separate works composed by about 40 different authors then what we have is multiple attestation. So for example, Paul would be able to verify something that the author of Luke-Acts recorded in Acts. Multiple attestation is one of many criteria of authenticity that is employed in historical inquiry.

  … I’m a fan of the scientific method. What does this tell you about me? It should tell you that I will not take any book’s word for its own validity. By reading your Holy Booktm, I will only learn a bit about your brand of mythology. I won’t come to believe it.

  Umm… why this notion that the scientific method would be a appropriate way to test the validity Bible (or any other record of history for that matter)? The fact is that science is limited in what it can test — do you then treat all history as equally implausible?

  And I also wonder if the scientific method can support your positive assertion that all these holy books are truly mythological. =/

• 28. mary  |  July 3, 2007 at 12:47 pm

  I think the biggest flaw in the theists argument that reading their holy book will convince people of God is that infact that (in my opinion at least) in order to be a true believer you should be able to see that your religion cannot be proven by your holy book or indeed by any other argument, the only reason, perhaps is could be argued the ‘purest’ reason for belief is though a word called “faith”. The christian God asks people to believe, just believe out oflove for God not because it can be proven in anyway.

• 29. Nick70  |  July 3, 2007 at 12:50 pm

  it really is frustrating when someone tells me that I don’t have an “open mind” just because I’m not willing to convert.

  This comment caught my eye — It’s not valid to say someone is not open minded because they are not willing to convert — it is valid to say they are not open minded because they are not willing to examine. Which category do you fall into?

• 30. Justin  |  July 3, 2007 at 1:37 pm

  Unfortunately, this post does not carry any logical or intellectual argument/persuasiveness - it is a personal unsupported rant at best. But maybe that was the point?

• 31. eye-of-horus  |  July 3, 2007 at 1:38 pm

  There’s no theistic shell that can’t be cracked. In order to defend a falsehood, one’s premises, assumptions, or logic *must* fail somewhere.

  eye-of-horus

• 32. alvinmatias  |  July 3, 2007 at 1:45 pm

  Maybe you can try browsing http://www.esoriano.wordpress.com and learn the Bible.

• 33. munkii  |  July 3, 2007 at 2:00 pm

  EXACTLY! i hate fuckin theists who try to prove that god exists by reading from the bible! i say WTF people? the bible/quran is why i’m not a christian/muslim in the first place! thanks for posting

• 34. Pooka  |  July 3, 2007 at 2:43 pm

  Religion gives people beautiful architecture and exquisite wars.

• 35. SurfaceEarth  |  July 3, 2007 at 2:49 pm

  I enjoyed this post, despite my tendency to launch into flights of the supernatural. Some fellow bloggers have been tossing back and forth the question (and frustration) as to why people feel they must shove their brand of religion, or thinking for that matter, at you? There are some great posts over at MysteryofInquity at wordpress.com where she struggled with people jumping on the blog and commenting in an effort, apparently, to change her way of thinking. I’m happy to report from my review of her posts, it didn’t change a thing. Anyway, great post, going to go check out some more of your posts.

• 36. cragar  |  July 3, 2007 at 2:52 pm

  wow, you guys made the front page at wordpress and the floodgates opened.

  Good post Simen, and I totally agree. Often I get into arguments with my wife or on the internet and they pull out bible quotes which doesn’t solve the problem. A very common occurence actually.

• 37. PalMD  |  July 3, 2007 at 3:12 pm

  I like what dphodgson had to say. It also argues that he probably isn’t American…our Evangelicals usually overwhelm the rational voices.
  I see nothing wrong with deriving lessons, beauty, etc from fiction, whether it be Shakespeare, Milton, the Bible, or Barbara Kingsolver. I don’t believe the Bible to be inherently worse than any other writing…just that some people use it as a work of nonfiction to oppress others…that’s their fault, not the book.

• 38. Nia  |  July 3, 2007 at 3:23 pm

  Believing is seeing. Religion is somewhat a pseudo-science. It can explain anyway anything. By the way, in this comment (at least) I am advocating Karl Popper’s Falsification Theory. So, because religion explains away everything, and takes no risks (actually… come to think of it… the risk is that they were wrong, innit? hrm… Is religion science?) therefore religion cannot be fully reliable, as there is lack of proper empirical evidence.

• 39. PalMD  |  July 3, 2007 at 3:34 pm

  Of course…it is fiction. That is why Apologetics seems ridiculous to me. Why try to empirically prove the unprovable? And they always sort of sweep falsification under the rug.
  If you want to have faith, great, just don’t sully my science with it.

• 40. mattdabbs  |  July 3, 2007 at 3:43 pm

  Doesn’t assuming that everything has a natural cause lead to circular reasoning as well? You basically said that if it doesn’t fit a natural cause then it must not be true. Start with the premise that all things can be described through natural means and it will prove itself true as you discredit anything that doesn’t fit that schema. How is your reasoning any less flawed than what you fault religions for?

• 41. PalMD  |  July 3, 2007 at 3:58 pm

  Aha…great question! The actual assumption is that all things should be describable by non-supernatural means…that any explanation should be falsifiable. The reason this differs from supernatural assumptions in circularity, is that the supernatural can ONLY be described by tautology. Naturalistic explanations are provable, and more importantly, disprovabee.

• 42. Blog Author  |  July 3, 2007 at 3:58 pm

  So…. who asked you to read a holy book?

  I always thought it was a ”need to know” kind of thing.

  Like I can read a tech manual about a certain thing because I need to know. I already have in my mind something that I’m looking for, am trying to find, or the worse one yet… I’ll know it when I see it.

  A spiritual walk is just that — its with your spirit, not your mind.

  So take a breather… maybe its not your time to take that walk. When you do, you will be alone — just you and the spirit that you follow or seek. It just boils down to one thing or the other: are you for good things or are you for bad things.

  You know the drill.

  So take a deep breath and express your outward thoughts, feelings and words to be rooted in either the elevation of the human race or the destruction of the human race, and know that either one you choose, you will be accountable for to the higher power.

  Take it easy friend, rise above the sediment.

• 43. PalMD  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:03 pm

  Hmm…interesting spirituality from The Realtor.
  Books are good. Bible, Dickens, lots of them. They make you think. But they don’t have to lead to faith.

• 44. mysterymika101  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:19 pm

  the funny thing about people looking for a good reason to do the Right thing which means being fair and equal to his/ her fellow human being… these people are searching for Answers, codes of behavior and examples of how it is accomplished and Belief of some sort of Final Justice for their soul. They need to believe that wrong people will get what they have sewn and Good Golden Rule followers will be rewarded in the after this here on Earth Life.
  That’s the funny thing. Now here’s the Sad thing… without this code, Bible good rule book many are still lost, some others have exhibited that they understand what should be done better with a Bible. They can’t handle an open mind or responsibility of their actions. This is another reason that shark fin soup which really taste awful is a delicacy.

• 45. societyvs  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:23 pm

  Good post - me and Dagoods had a huge discussion on something similar - apparently it is circular reasoning once those texts hold no validity or claims to explaining something in history…if that is the case …tear away.

• 46. David  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:30 pm

  Simen,

  As someone who upholds the Bible as God’s word, let me encourage you not to read it.

  Forget about the Bible completely.

  Live your life 100% the way you want to. Embrace your rationalism to the furthest extent of its profitability for you. But if at any point you feel the need for a crutch, feel free to peruse its pages.

  The Bible offers wisdom only to those who realize they are fools, salvation only to the condemned, light to those in darkness.

  David

• 47. Trishy  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:30 pm

  How about reading the bible with an open heart? Forget the mind. We only use 10% of it anyway.

• 48. Thinking Ape  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:33 pm

  I think we use less than 10% of our heart too Trishy.

• 49. PalMD  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:34 pm

  Well, it’s hard to say how much mind we use, as it is an emergent phenomenon of the brain. The whole 10% brain thing is an old canard, but a cool one.
  All books can be read with an open heart and mind, many have something to offer, and the more of them you read, the better.

• 50. Sue  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:37 pm

  Interesting…so I suppose that atheism is NOT a circular argument by implication…how is that?

• 51. PalMD  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:39 pm

  “Atheism is not a circular argument”. I will have to try to guess what that statement means, but lacking a belief in an unproved supernatural being is not a tautology.

• 52. PalMD  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:40 pm

  P.S. Is failure to believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn circular?

• 53. Jack Spratt  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:44 pm

  You need to understand that you also come to this discussion with presuppositions. Your arguments are based on the belief that God doesn’t exsist. That forms your entire world view. But can you disprove that God doesn’t exsist? No, no one truly can. I believe in God, but I can prove his exsistence. Whether you want to believe it or not, you in some sense “have faith” that God does not exsist.

  Also, I do not think you represented the Christian perspective fairly. If you cannot be bothered to find an accurate quote by someone who disagrees with you, then you should not use it. For all I know, you are just making up that verse to prove your point.

  And in response to christians using the Bible to make their point: scientists do it all the time, basically. What I mean is that they teach evolution, etc. but there is no true and pure scientific evidence to back it up. True science is observable, measureable, and repeatable. Evolution isn’t. Scientists and Christians look at the evidence, but because we have different world views, we come to different conclusions.

  Also, if you would read other books written by “The Early Church Fathers” such as Athenagoras, Polycarp, Melito, and others from the early to mid 2nd century, you would find that those men (some of whom were taught by eye-witnesses of Jesus) also believed that Christ was the Son of God. Also, some of the writers of the New Testament books were eye-witnesses to Christ and His miracles. They saw what He did, they heard what He said, and they believed in Him. So it goes beyond just believeing what they bible says, you can look at the historical aspect as well.

  But in the end, this won’t change your mind. Whether you like it or not, in the end, your presupposition that there is no God is based on faith, the same basis that my presupposition that there is a God is based on. So are we both guilty of circular reasoning?

• 54. PalMD  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:45 pm

  No.

• 55. Tim A. Blankenship  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:46 pm

  Simen,
  It does all begin and end with God. if that is circular reasoning then it is quite good. It has a beginning and an end.
  If there is a God then what for you?

• 56. De-conversion « lif&hellip  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:47 pm

  [...] http://de-conversion.com/2007/07/03/dont-ask-me-to-read-your-holy-book/ [...]

• 57. cragar  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:49 pm

  @ David
  Forget about the Bible completely.

  Live your life 100% the way you want to. Embrace your rationalism to the furthest extent of its profitability for you.
  

  Your not the first one to post a comment similar to this but I always think that it is one of the most ludicrous statements. Just because one is an atheist doesn’t mean we are all looking out for #1 and be damned the rest of the world.

  Do yourself a favor and read some of the rest of the posts on this site (there are multiple writers).

• 58. religionandatheism  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:50 pm

  Atheism isn’t an argument, it’s a position. It is a combination of positions actually, and what the specific flavour of the combination is depends on its consituent parts: the objections to theism involved, and the metaphysics to name just two. For example, even Daniel Dennet and Susan Blackmore who are both advocates of the meme theory, don’t even agree about whether consciousness exists. Both are atheists though.
  For lots of interesting debates and videos on atheism, theism, god, religion, freedom of speech, Richard Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens and so on, have a look here:
  http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com
  Don’t be scared to browse the categories!

• 59. PalMD  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:52 pm

  In fact, don’t be scared to think about atheism rationally. I have no desire for anyone to give up their faith…just to understand that their faith isn’t the only way.

• 60. musabryant  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:54 pm

  What you should do instead of speaking without any knowledge,

  should take the time to read the same books that you choose to

  criticize, and see for yourself what is true or false. The fact that

  someone like you could just easily say that you can speak about

  Islam, without ever reading the Qur’an makes you seem like an

  idiot. If you would have taken the time to read the Qur’an, you

  would know Allah speaks about things that no one had any

  knowledge of during the time that it was revealed.

  Some examples:

  1. Allah mentions that Human beings were created from Human

  Fallopian eggs.

  2. Allah describes location that semen exits the Human body.

  3. Allah speaks about the three Trimesters of Human pregnancy.

  4. Allah speaks about the development of the child as it is in the

  womb of its mother.

  None of these things were known to Humans previous to the

  revelation of the Qur’an.

  So, the next time you want to criticize something, I would suggest

  thatyou know what you are talking about, because right now you

  have no idea what you are spewing from your mouth.

• 61. PalMD  |  July 3, 2007 at 4:55 pm

  I’m not sure how any of that has to do with faith and books. Interesting though. The medieval Islamic world was renowned for its learning.

• 62. cragar  |  July 3, 2007 at 5:00 pm

  @ Jack Spratt

  But you are straying from the topic of the post. In many debates about theism/atheism theists use the Bible to reconcile their “fact.” At least with an atheist, say you are arguing evolution, since you brought it up. We can point you skeletal remains from millions of years ago that prove species evolve. Yet no evidence remains of any cataclysmic flood, that human beings ever lived to be more than 150 years old, that Joshua’s request to stop the sun ever happened, etc, etc.

• 63. Christianity in Norway &l&hellip  |  July 3, 2007 at 5:03 pm

  [...] in Norway One of the top posts today at WordPress.com is “Don’t Ask Me to Read Your Holy Book“, and I see in the comments of the post that several means the author have to read the Bible [...]

• 64. Reverend Peterson Cekemp  |  July 3, 2007 at 5:06 pm

  Hi There! I’m a brazilian discordianist, and I would like to translate this excellent text to my page. Is it ok?

  Thnks

• 65. lostgirlfound  |  July 3, 2007 at 5:10 pm

  Isn’t “faith” the evidence of things not seen? In and of itself, faith cannot be proved — circular reasoning or not. Plus, both sides of the discussion should be careful … how many things “proved” scientifically have been “unproved” as we have learned more and more about the world?

• 66. supermannino  |  July 3, 2007 at 5:16 pm

  The Bible isn’t like a hypnotist in the sense that, once you read it, you’ll all of a sudden magically believe. God can reveal Himself in a number of ways. If you are stubbornly going to refuse reading the Bible to get the full picture of who God is, well, I trust that He will reach you in some other way.

  The term “agnostic” comes from the Greek phrase meaning “not knowing.” If you are proud of not knowing the truth about God and man, well, I guess no one can stop you. I’m actually trying to do the opposite. On my blog, I’m actually looking for the truth…

• 67. David  |  July 3, 2007 at 5:20 pm

  Cragar,

  Of course, we all know it would be impossible for Simen to utterly unlearn everything he had learned about the Bible. While you may have assumed I intended he resort to intentional ignorance, this was not my counsel. My implication was not that he “forget” in a completely cognitive manner; but rather he ignore the elements in it which compel him to live or think differently.

  In contrast with people of faith who demand that he immerse himself in Scripture in order to change his philosophy, I think he probably knows it well enough to realize it’s not what he wants. In that case, I say forget about it unless he feels he needs something that rationalism can’t offer.

  David

• 68. kmp  |  July 3, 2007 at 5:38 pm

  i’m curious…why are “other sources” and “outside sources” considered credible when the Bible is not? is the Bible not a credible source for explaining and understanding Christianity, as it is written by those who were closest to Christ and helped spread Christianity?

  then what other source is credible? even if a person doesn’t believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God (which I do believe), it still provides the complete history and chronicle of Jesus’ life.

  i’m simply asking: why is the Bible not a credible source when discussing the life of Christ and history of Christianity?

• 69. itsrhetorical  |  July 3, 2007 at 5:41 pm

  I won’t ask you to, didn’t ask you to. You’ve just written a long blog on a book you don’t want to read. Go figure. I’m going to go and review a painting I have neither seen nor understood

• 70. Jack Spratt  |  July 3, 2007 at 5:57 pm

  Cragar, there is evidence for global flooding, and there remains to be found any real evidence to support evolution. People who say that there is are mis-informed. You see fossils and say that they took millions of years to get that way. I see fossils and say that it was caused by a sudden cataclysmic event like a global flood.

  Go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/ for some better info on it than I can give

• 71. Susie  |  July 3, 2007 at 6:07 pm

  all i want to say is: well said!!!

• 72. astarwashere  |  July 3, 2007 at 6:11 pm

  I was raised catholic, and went through the various stages of non-practicing, then to agnosticism, and more recently radical athiest. I’m proud of the trials I’ve had to go through to finally become the person I am today. Now I’m out here fighting the good fight for things that can really carry humanity; the sciences.

  The bible is more contradictory each time I read it. The Judeo-Christian god is a wrathful bastard who kills and then proclaims “i am love”. I’m witnessing hundreds of people dying over “their” god daily. We’ve got fundamentalists harassing our kids when they don’t join in prayer. Don’t get me started on the crap they allow to be broadcast into our living room on Sunday.

  It’s too bad guys like me can go to school, become lawyer’s and eventually politicians, or we might never see the winds of change come. That was sarcasm.

• 73. dale  |  July 3, 2007 at 6:13 pm

  I read all these comments with interest. lostgirlfound I think has it right. Faith is basically believing in something (or is this case some one) even though logic can’t prove it. The Resurection of Christ is one of the very basic tenants of the Christian faith, yet no science will ever prove, or disprove it. All we have is the Bible to tell us about it.
  I am Christian. How I got to this point is irrelevant, and nobody really cares anyhow. But I became Christian without knowing the Bible. I also know people who read it for front to back. Several times. And still did not “see the light.” Religion I think defies logic, circular or otherwise.

• 74. Tony  |  July 3, 2007 at 6:15 pm

  While I agree with your notions of circular reasoning, I personal feel that one cannot fully understand their own viewpoint until they study the other side of the coin. For example, I am a theist, but have openly read and continue to openly read atheistic works in order to understand other worldviews. While it will never convince me to change my mind, I believe it enriches my life, expands my knowledge, and makes me more tolerant. Great article by the way.

• 75. bretmavrich  |  July 3, 2007 at 6:24 pm

  As a Christian, I invite people to read the Bible for the same reason John invited people to read his gospel: That you may see and believe that Jesus is the Son of God and in believing have life in His name.

  The appeal is very empirical: If you read the Bible openly and do not encounter the Living God in it, feel free to continue living your godless life (though it won’t be much of a life).

  Frankly, the only thing that is decidedly a priori is your hardline cynicism. If you aren’t even seeking God, you won’t be open to see if He really walks the pages of the Bible or not because of your assumption. But I’ll tell you this: He’s much stronger than your skeptical-naturalism.

• 76. PalMD  |  July 3, 2007 at 6:41 pm

  So, in other words, the only way it is possible to believe in god, is to believe it god. Interesting.

• 77. religionandatheism  |  July 3, 2007 at 6:47 pm

  A post above by musabryant claims that Allah revealed through the Koran facts about human biology that were otherwise unknown - a claim to God’s superior knowledge and revelation. One might wonder why it is that he stopped at human biology, whereas he could have revealed so many other wonders. For example, subatomic structure, the vastness of the universe, the speed of light, or useful knowledge of chemistry, or anti-biotics or that such a thing as Australia exists, or that other planets have moons too, or … well… you get my point.
  But no. The fact that gestation of human embryos happens over three trimesters is what we’re offered. That definitely proves not only the validity of the Koran, Allah’s existence but also his omniscience and wisdom.
  What nonsense!

• 78. religionandatheism  |  July 3, 2007 at 6:50 pm

  Jack Sprat above from answers in genesis claims there no evidence for evolution! What is this then?
  http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com/2007/06/27/evidence-for-evolution-and-against-intelligent-design/

  Intelligent Designers: don’t be shy in explaining the data!

• 79. Laz  |  July 3, 2007 at 7:09 pm

  OK I won’t.

  “Former Christians”? No such thing my friend.

• 80. Simen  |  July 3, 2007 at 7:15 pm

  Whoa. This response is overwhelming. I’m about to go to bed (it’s 1 in the morning over here), so I’ll be brief now and try to address more of this later with a clear mind.

  To those who brought up/are thinking about bringing up evolution: it’s irrelevant. The fact that it is science, despite what you say, is a matter for a different post.

  To Sarah-chan, that passage is probably clunky because there are a lot of metaphors, some of which are maybe unnecessary. I’ll take it into consideration for future writings. And yes, I’m what you’d call young-ish.

  To those who complain that I am in fact using circular reasoning to justify scientific assumptions: show me some supernatural explanation that is (a) falsifiable, (b) explains a phenomenon better than any current scientific hypothesis and (c) backed up by solid evidence. I would think the fact that no supernatural explanation seems to conform to scientific principles is relevant.

  To those who say I cannot understand your viewpoint without reading your book: I know of the basics of your belief. I have read parts of the Bible. I even underwent a Christian confirmation with the Bible-reading and theology that accompanies that, for cultural reasons, and because I (perhaps mistakenly) believed that Christian values had much merit even without the supernatural component. It’s not just a rant about me not bothering to read your book. It’s the belief that reading the Bible will somehow validate it that bothers me.

  The Bible is built on certain assumptions. It contains an extraordinary amount of extraordinary claims. The evidence that suggests the things the Bible describes to be impossible or flat out wrong is overwhelming. Obviously, such cosmic events need cosmic amounts of evidence. Yet we find little to validate Biblical writings outside of the Bible.

  I’m tired of circular logic. As I’ve tried to explain, reading the Bible will certainly provide me with insight into the Christian mentality (though many Christians haven’t read and based their view on it), but it won’t validate the ideas within it and I know enough of the premises to reject them. I may some day decide to read through it all, because I recognize the enormous cultural impact it has, but I won’t do it so that some stranger on the internet will call me open minded.

  To you (or those) who claim I should do direct quotes: sorry, the person in question was on a Norwegian webforum, so I’m confident the majority here won’t understand it. It was some time ago, so I’m not sure I can track it down (remember, this post was written some time ago, for my personal blog). Also, the direct quote isn’t the point. The point isn’t to point out flaws in the Bible, but to point out flaws in the argument which goes something like “In here, the Bible says this. Over there, the Bible says that this happened! Woohoo! I just proved the biblical assertion!”

• 81. sisteraddy  |  July 3, 2007 at 7:27 pm

  “Does the fact that I haven’t read the Koran mean I cannot be critical of Islam? Absolutely not! I don’t believe them” Criticism without knowledge of what you are criticizing?
  Thats not very scientific is it? Or rational, or logical for that matter. But I’m glad you’re honest. If science appeals to you, you would obviously be aware of the falsification test? Quran comes with its own falsification test, in Chapter (4: 82) where Allah (One God) says: “Do they not consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would sure have found therein much contradictions.” 1400 years since and science has only been able to prove its revelations correct.

  Why dont you admit, you too, believe, to not believe. Your belief system considers your desires, thoughts and emotions to rule your purpose of life. I wont mention knowledge, you obviously do not want to base your beliefs on knowledge, thats for certain. The fact remains that whether you like it or not, an Omnipresent God exists, and all of mankind will be resurrected to account for their deeds. God gave mankind a choice, to obey or disobey. Hence, here you are an atheist? Here I am a muslim, testifying that there is no one worthy of worship except Allah (One God) and that Muhammad was the last and final prophet of Allah. Why don’t you do yourself a favor and at least read about the book, the Quran, that you are criticizing? Are you so scared that you might be convinced to believe? Is it, purely because you dont want to, but your rational mind may prove you wrong? After all, I read your belief system, and I am even more convinced now that Islam is the truth.

• 82. syd1953  |  July 3, 2007 at 7:39 pm

  As supermanino indicated, some of us are looking for the truth. I am from a Christian background but could not tell you if the Bible is true or if God or Jesus exist. But I am curious enough about this whole “religion” thing, Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, Tao, Buddhism, etc to find out for myself and to discover where my beliefs are. So I read as much as I have time for. And nobody, ever, said I have to believe everything that I read. Until I read everything, which will of course never happen, I will continue to try to learn and understand what makes people believe or not believe. It is only through education that we can become stronger in mind, body and spirit.

• 83. Mal Bicker  |  July 3, 2007 at 7:43 pm

  I’m just curious why you are so focused on God and the Bible
  when it is all just a fairy tale. I sure wouldn’t spend a minute trying to prove there was no tooth fairy. Why are all your articles so God and Bible conscious? Don’t you have better things to think about and write about.

  Understand, I’m not slamming you. I think you are a deep thinker and probalby more intellectural than myself. I just wondered about these things as I read your blog.

  God’s best to you.
  Mal Bicker

• 84. Simen  |  July 3, 2007 at 7:47 pm

  Why indeed write about fairy tales and mythology?

  You will have noticed I don’t write much about Norse or Greek mythology. It has to do with the fact that there are next to noe believers in these mythologies, and so these beleifs have no influence in the world.

  Also, I like philosophy. It’s enjoyable.

  sisteraddy, understand, I won’t criticize a concept I don’t uderstand, and so I won’t criticize parts of Islam I know nothing about. I understand very well the concept of a monotheistic god, so I have no problem criticizing that concept.

• 85. DANIEL  |  July 3, 2007 at 7:50 pm

  Religion is the greatest con ever perpetrated upon mankind. That it is still a divisive force in the world is tribute to our continuing genetic primitivness, the mediocrity of our intelligence.

  Even children eventually give up believing in Santa!

• 86. matt  |  July 3, 2007 at 7:55 pm

  disclaimer: i promise i’m not actually trying to prove anything.
  wouldn’t reading a holy book with an open mind mean reading it with the attitude that it might be true? if you go into something with an open mind, “open” has to mean that you do it with absolutely no presuppositions, right?

• 87. Top Posts « WordPre&hellip  |  July 3, 2007 at 7:58 pm

  [...] Don’t Ask Me to Read Your Holy Book An A-Religious Commentary [...]

• 88. The Reason You Come  |  July 3, 2007 at 8:09 pm

  No matter how much you obfuscate and complicate matters, if your logic can be traced back from your conclusion to your conclusion, you have built a circle, and circular reasoning is never justification for the assumption it seeks to prove.

  This is exactly the reason I stopped being a Christian, and then stopped believing in religion altogether. I read the bible, memorized phrases from it, even switched from Catholicism to the Baptist faith, all in the name of seeking the “true religion”. I read a numerous books and articles on other religions as well. I wanted to find answers to my questions, because most of the doctrines I was raised to believe as true didn’t make sense at all. When one question was answered, it would prompt me to ask another, and then another, and another. It seemed the answers contradicted each other. And the part that didn’t make sense the most was that all the answers had to come from the bible. You’re right, for you to believe what’s written in that book, you have to prove the premise by assuming the premise. You have to come up with something illogical in order to prove the illogical. I see the Christian way of quoting passages from the bible to prove a point as an excuse or a cover-up for the fact that they have no actual evidence to support their claims. When they have no real answers, the bible serves as their lifeline, and they’re confident that they can pass it off as truth because, well, who can refute what’s written there? Who has the audacity to do that? And if there is one, then what he’s doing is a sacrilege, and he must be evil. Don’t they ever ask themselves what if the bible was just a hoax? What then? There would be no basis at all for everything the Christian faith dictates. What will happen to “the faithful” then? Their world will crumble because the foundation of their faith, of their lives, has turned out to be nothing but a lie.

• 89. Donny  |  July 3, 2007 at 8:10 pm

  I hated Christianity for years. I threw the Bible out the window and wouldn’t believe a word of it.

  What changed my mind about the Bible were some books that were suggested to me that gave more “context” to the Bible. So many take the english translation so literal. What a mistake! Doing a bit of deep digging to find out what it’s actually saying puts it in a whole new light.

  I think it’s impossible for a skeptic to believe a word it says without doing such digging. I know that was the case with me. Once I learned what it is REALLY saying I no longer have a problem with it.

• 90. Simen  |  July 3, 2007 at 8:15 pm

  So tell me, Donny, what is the Bible really saying?

  You see, there are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are people who have read it.

• 91. Resources for Skeptics, D&hellip  |  July 3, 2007 at 8:41 pm

  [...] in Uncategorized at 8:41 pm by michellecwheeler The title of the post, Don’t Ask Me to Read Your Holy Book, caught my eye today while surfing around WordPress. I’m always fascinated to hear why people [...]

• 92. Kelly Gorski  |  July 3, 2007 at 8:48 pm

  I just blogged about this the other day. It terrifies me how politicizd faith-based beliefs are becoming because the thinking will no doubt saturate other areas of life.

  I stumbled to your site. Rock on.

• 93. itsrhetorical  |  July 3, 2007 at 9:02 pm

  sisteraddy, if you haven’t read the Koran you can’t criticise the Koran. You can criticise Muslims if their behaviour is immoral or criminal; but you can’t criticise a book you haven’t read.

  I’d also like to add, on the flood subject that I spent a lot of time on Mount Carmel in Northern Israel and their are fossils of marine creatures all over the place. How did marine life get up a mountain? And no, it hadn’t evolved legs. They had shells, Trilobites mainly.

• 94. There Is Only One…&hellip  |  July 3, 2007 at 9:05 pm

  [...] http://de-conversion.com/2007/07/03/dont-ask-me-to-read-your-holy-book/ [...]

• 95. Rev. Peterson Cekemp  |  July 3, 2007 at 9:27 pm

  Simen, my comment has been lost in a sea of comments.
  I’ll translate it, is there any problem?
  I think nope… Send you trackback later, ok?
  Hail Eris

• 96. Thinking Ape  |  July 3, 2007 at 9:28 pm

  itsrhetorical says: “I’d also like to add, on the flood subject that I spent a lot of time on Mount Carmel in Northern Israel and their are fossils of marine creatures all over the place. How did marine life get up a mountain?”

  itsrhetorical,
  Take a look at this picture:
  http://www.sgs.org.sa/Content/images/arab%20plate%20tectonic%20setting.jpg

  I’m sure that even someone with a high school education can figure out why there would be marine fossils on a mountain that was created by shifting plate techtonics.

• 97. Grizzled Adams  |  July 3, 2007 at 9:37 pm

  If Jesus could really “Do” miracles, slappin together a 57 chevy would have made me a true believer.

  Griz

• 98. nocturnal  |  July 3, 2007 at 9:44 pm

  Stalin once said that,

  IF YOUR THEORY DOESNT MATCH WITH FACTS THAN CHANGE THE FACTS.

  i think he was inspired by CHARLES DARWIN who had done exactly the same in order to prove his theroy,

  READ HERE ABT. THIS,

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

  further they(evolutionists) tempered with gorilla embroys to prove themselves right again their embroys were declared fake by the scientists.

  Biggest porblem with our ATHEISTS friends is that when you argue with them they behave exactly in the same way as bigoted believers.

  Einstein once said that ,

  Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

  I think we should analyse things before jumping to conclusion, how can you declare anything false when you dont even knwo what it is actually about.

  I can say that DONT ASK ME to read Einstein RELATIVITY THEROY cuz i know its nothing but a crappy mathematics propsed by a mentally RETARDED PERSON, when teh reality is totally opposite.

  I qould like to recommend two books written by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, a french Medical doctor.

  1- Science and Islam
  2- QURAN, BIBLE and SCIENCE.

  following is the link to one of his books,

  http://www.submission.org/Q-science.html

• 99. nocturnal  |  July 3, 2007 at 9:51 pm

  plz check these link abt the archealogical discovery,

  NOAH’S ARK FOUND ON MT. ARARAT, TURKEY by an American archealogist,

  following are some very interesting links for those who take interest in archealogy, as many things have been revealed through this,

  http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah’s_ark.htm

  http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y5ORpMTebI&mode=related&search=

  http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6XoYV-vgX-w

• 100. nocturnal  |  July 3, 2007 at 9:54 pm

  first link in my above comment is dead, following is right link ,

  http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah’s_ark.htm

• 101. hampster  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:03 pm

  The main point of this is to stir up debate, yet on both sides of this argument I see people convinced of their own perfect truth. Yet no one, including the person who posted this, has been able to PROVE a word of it. (And no, saying you can’t prove it, therefore I am right is not PROOF. That is illogical.)

  Science is science and faith (of a religious nature) is faith. The two are separate more often than not. Most scientists I have heard of keep well clear of that debate, intent upon learning
  about their surrounding world and universe. The opposite can be said of most ‘theists’, who are intent upon not disproving science, but accepting and learning more about their own individual faiths. Those who argue these points are in a debate they cannot win.

  On a separate more opinion generated thought, most people upon this forum who are non-faith based individuals seem to be under the presumption that everyone person in the world who is Christian believes the bible verbatim. That is a foolish presumption. Simply because you have been burned or met these people (who are the extreme) does not mean you should automatically assume all Christians are right for life, anti-gay individuals who will attempt to prove their religion to you by beating the bible upon your head in a vigorous fashion.

  “I would think the fact that no supernatural explanation seems to conform to scientific principles is relevant” In essence, “Your ideas of what is true do not conform to mine, therefore you are wrong.” In case you were wondering that is classified as an aggressively closed mind. To pre-empt your attack upon my post; NO, I do not believe that an open mind means “read it and than believe ’cause its da Truth!” Think of it this way.

  You hear a scientist has created a vehicle which will run upon pure water. The process, is unknown to you, but you have never heard of this and never seen the proof before your eyes. Before he can put it forth to the world in its finalized form, he dies and no one can find his notes or the vehicle. You decide, it must have been a hoax and go about your daily life. When others bring this up to you, you automatically say NOPE it was a hoax. “No one ever proved to me that it really existed, he just said it and disappeared.”

  This is a closed mind. Instead of attempting to see if the truth exists in the rumor or article you found. You decide that since the proof will not be presented to you, “Why should you be bothered to get up and look?”

  Your arguments: First is that Christians use fallacious logic to prove their points. Therefore, Christianity and Christians are wrong. - This is Fallacious. These Christians you speak of may be wrong for using falable logic, but that doesn’t make the belief wrong.
  Secondly Christians do not use the same thought process you do, so obviously they are wrong. - Well we don’t think alike, so you are wrong.
  Thirdly, this book they claim to follow says stuff they can’t replicate. Therefore it is wrong. - So you have been to the moon?
  Will your argument be here, “No, but others have?” If so, how do you know? You have seen them on the moon, with your own eyes? You have proof! If that was your argument, you certainly believe a lot of what others say without the proof you seem to demand from Christians and their ‘book.’

• 102. Spoonman  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:05 pm

  Here’s the problem, nocturnal…I grew up in a “catholic” household. My family was typical “catholic”, meaning we went to church for weddings and funerals. They also sent me to catholic grade school where I was taught the bible in great detail. I was constantly getting in to trouble because starting at a very early age, 6 or 7, I started to see inconsistencies with the stories and when I questioned them, I was told I’d understand someday. That I had to have faith. Eventually, I got tired of hearing the stupid answers and after trying hard to figure out how anyone could swallow this tripe, I finally had the chance to get out. I moved on to a secular high school where I learned how to THINK and reason. And, in that thinking, I came to the conclusion that all the stories you people tell each other are nothing more than the delusional rantings of people living with a shared psychosis. You’re like the coven of conspiracy theorists struggling to convince the world to believe your inane ramblings all the while you sit in your private places telling each other how smart you are and how doomed the rest of the world is because they don’t believe your bunk.

  Conversely, most atheist rants like the one on this blog are born more out of frustration from the closed-minded followers of a god who is said to be loving and forgiving, yet sends 3 bears to kill 42 children for making fun of his holy man’s bald head. They’re not the norm of our behavior. We know your stories, we know they’re crap. Most times, however, atheists are generally willing to sit and have a reasoned argument as to how you can be against abortion, yet worship a god who practices infanticide on a scale that would make Hitler squeemish? How is it that you have money to afford a computer to get on the Internet and spout your insane ramblings when your messiah clearly states you should give all that you have away? You just happened to catch this fellow on a bad day.

• 103. A lively debate about god&hellip  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:06 pm

  [...] 3rd, 2007 at 7:06 pm (Uncategorized) Here is the link, this is a lot of [...]

• 104. hampster  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:18 pm

  “i think he was inspired by CHARLES DARWIN who had done exactly the same in order to prove his theroy,”

  Please, don’t insight a riot based upon words you give no evidence for. Prove that please.

• 105. hampster  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:21 pm

  “1. Allah mentions that Human beings were created from Human

  Fallopian eggs.

  2. Allah describes location that semen exits the Human body.

  3. Allah speaks about the three Trimesters of Human pregnancy.

  4. Allah speaks about the development of the child as it is in the

  womb of its mother.

  None of these things were known to Humans previous to the

  revelation of the Qur’an.

  So, the next time you want to criticize something, I would suggest

  thatyou know what you are talking about, because right now you

  have no idea what you are spewing from your mouth.”

  Sorry for the back to back posts, but if you are still around, PLEASE prove that? I am truly interested.

• 106. BlameitonRio  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:22 pm

  When I postulate a certain point of view, even one I believe in, the very fact that I speak it means that I want and desire to have a discussion. Some people, by personality, want a well ordered, polite and generally quiet discussion, others would rather a full on debate just short of all out war! But it is still discussion and I, probably by my non-meditative personality, find that more stimulating than sitting in a cave, alone, contemplating my navel.
  That is how I see scriptures of the types that exist. I know as a fact that I don’t know everything there is to know! Therfore I will beg steal and borrow the knowledge of others, and probably take on faith that they aren’t lying to me and try to learn the wisdom to choose the difference.
  Because here is ‘the rub’. I believe in one God. I can prove it. So can anyone. Millions have already and millions will in the future. How? I can die! I can prove ME wrong or right.
  The trouble is I don’t yet want to. I am not in any hurry on that score. So all I am left with is unprovable discussion and debate and doubts. This is actually what ‘faith’ is. Yet many contributions treat faith as the ‘hijacked’ religious term of collective set of do’es and don’ts. That isn’t helpful.
  But short of dying, why would I believe these writings. Simply because belief in a deity is cross-verifiable across gender, culture, history and very often against the contemporary tide of the day. As was said earlier, Science is not all knowing, all loving. Empiricism is extremely limited in application, just ask any psychologist. Oops, psychology of course isn’t REAL science! May I suggest not using science as God’s adversary. True science doesn’t write anything off. It is just some hypotheses are difficult to support and finding the right support is often about asking the right questions in the first place. 50 years ago physics did not have the right questions to entertain the possibilities of quantum mechanics. Did that mean these phenomena we are studying now didn’t exist! Maybe even circular logic, has its uses. Sometimes the conclusion may be about the journey rather than the conclusion, even in science.

• 107. bry0000000  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:24 pm

  “Doesn’t assuming that everything has a natural cause lead to circular reasoning as well? You basically said that if it doesn’t fit a natural cause then it must not be true. Start with the premise that all things can be described through natural means and it will prove itself true as you discredit anything that doesn’t fit that schema. How is your reasoning any less flawed than what you fault religions for?”

  The difference is as follows. Simon’s objective with his naturalistic views, I believe, is to discover the source of truth. The natural actions of a human reveal his true being. Christianity is a religion and not an automatic mode of life, therefore cannot constitute itself as a self-proving truth. You cannot say Christianity is true just because Christianity is true.

• 108. littleshao  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:32 pm

  I am a Christian and I find your views extremely interesting. If there are people interested in sorting out such opinions on worldview, religion and faith, I highly recommend you take a look at the website of ChinaHorizon by Reverend Samuel Ling, a speaker who deals with apologetics on the Christian faith, and might be of help to those who are curious or confused.

  http://www.chinahorizon.org/

  Circular reasoning is a flawed logical explanation for anything that we’re arguing regarding it’s value of truth. However, I hope to draw to some peoples’ attention that just as Christians and religious people do make assumptions, athiests and deconverts do make their own assumptions as well, and that definitely does NOT make any faith or religion or belief untrue or wrong.

  What I can say is that even though I’m not skilled at the art of apologetics or even to discuss such religious issues, I have experienced God in my personal life. Yes, there is no way to prove that a God does not exist. And if you let yourself into all the testimonies and lifealtering (i did not say 180* lifechanging) experiences of converts and believers, you will find that such personal stories testify to the existence of a divine God.

  It is logically flawed to use the Bible to prove itself. But dear friends, the Bible itself was written by so many different authors with different backgrounds, in different situations, and across a timespan of hundreds of years. I don’t believe Paul consulted John or Moses or Solomon before he wrote his epistles. And yet they all point to the same message of the same God and His same work of salvation. I thought that was interesting to note.

  Another thing we ought to note while undertaking this feat to sort out issues on faith and religion, is that it is undeniable that we human beings are limited. We do not know all. Science is great, and we have found out a lot more about the world we live in from it. But do we know every thing there is to know? No, we do not. Do we know for sure what will happen when we die and leave this world we live in? Do we know where we came from as human beings, from monkeys? Do we know how the universe works?

  Then to reach a conclusion that a God is simply not real and is merely a piece of man’s imagination is really quite frivolous. It requires much more thought than what we have arrived at today, yes?

• 109. hampster  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:38 pm

  “is to discover the source of truth.” The source of truth? Or what is true? If one attempts to discover what is true, one must make damn sure that it is absolute. Truth is absolute.

  “The natural actions of a human reveal his true being.” What? Are you saying if I take a dump, therefore I am a piece of fecal matter?

  “You cannot say Christianity is true just because Christianity is true.” I have to absolutely agree with you here. Which is why I will point out that you cannot say Christianity is false because Christianity is false. When scientists hear of a way of doing something, whether that is chemical mixing for a certain reaction or a test of a health drug, they do not set out to disprove it. They do not say, “Ah ha! Today I shall disprove your cure for cancer.” They do say, “I would like to test, or attempt to prove that it works.”

  You claim Simon is attempting to discover the ’source of truth’. You can do that by discrediting something you have not attempted to validate?

• 110. Jacqueline  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:41 pm

  Great writing. I really enjoyed this post.

  You are 100% right: you should NOT be forced to read with “an open mind”. That isn’t REALLY reading with an open mind, is it? You should not be put down for being atheist or agnostic; that’s just as bad as being put down for being a Christian, Jew, or whatever

  However, because I am a Christian, I must put in my two cents:
  The Bible is to be read as a symbolic book; it is not literal (i.e. the world obviously wasn’t created in 7 days. We know that). This is why I’m easily able to see that, in my opinion anyway, science is science and has vast amounts of authority, but who am I to say that God had no hand in nature, creation, whatever. For one who is not a “Bible thumper” swearing on every single word of that book to be true, religion becomes something that meshes wonderfully well with science.

  Second, I loved your “premise” paragraphs. Good stuff. Check out some of St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings. He went through periods of huge questioning of his faith, and that questioning allowed him to utilize Greek philosophy to logically, step by step, prove the existence of some sort of higher being. It’s pretty neat reading if you’re a fan of philosophy (even if you don’t believe at all in any god). He does some great premise and cause/effect theories.

  Also, there are some very interesting writings from Romans that have recently been discovered (their carbon-dating is currently in progress) that testifies to the miracles that Jesus performed. Now, what reason would Roman soldiers have to validate that Jesus performed miracles? If nothing else, wouldn’t they want to deny/refute it? Again, nothing to put all your faith in, but just a reason to maybe not shut out all possibilities, you know?

  I’ve gone through my fair share of doubts and skepticisms, but something keeps bringing me back. I often wonder if it’s because I want that security of believing in an afterlife or the comfort of knowing someone (or something) is watching over me, but I find that some things in this world and in this universe are simply far too great to be just a coincidence.

  That was more than two cents… more like ten or fifteen.
  Anyway, keep writing; it’s good stuff. I’ll definitely visit again soon.

• 111. seeker314  |  July 3, 2007 at 11:05 pm

  Here is a scientist who converted to Islam. You may be interested in what he has to say…

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK00xTkMGO0

• 112. fiL3xtacy  |  July 4, 2007 at 12:05 am

  Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. Allâh has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings…

  Al-Qur’an:6-7

• 113. fiL3xtacy  |  July 4, 2007 at 12:10 am

  “How can you disbelieve in Allâh? Seeing that you were dead and He gave you life. Then He will give you death, then again will bring you to life (on the Day of Resurrection) and then unto Him you will return.” (2:2
  “Evil is the parable of the people who reject Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses and signs, etc.) and used to wrong their own selves” (7:177).
  “Do they not then think deeply in the Qur’ân, or are their hearts locked up (from understanding it)?” (47:24).

• 114. PalMD  |  July 4, 2007 at 12:13 am

  I find Christian Apologetics somewhat ridiculous. Jesus argued for faith, and Christianity is built on faith. Trying to PROVE your beliefs is, well, silly. Believe, find comfort, enjoy, and don’t forget to leave the rest of us alone. And don’t try to sully science with your faith….they both suffer.

• 115. Anonymous  |  July 4, 2007 at 12:25 am

  This is really not that interesting a post. What’s the big deal? His arguments aren’t very concise or at all required reading. He makes a statement and then goes on to whine all over the place like his own diagram.

  WE GET THE POINT SIR, WE WON’T TRY TO MAKE YA LIKE JESUS, SORRY FOR TRYING TO SHARE SOMETHING THAT IMPROVED OUR OWN LIVES. Ok! Seriously! Sorry! Zomg!

  This has cheap intellectual written all over it. Guy needs to chill. Take some advice from Christ: Judge not lest ye be called on your bullshit.

• 116. Billy Chia  |  July 4, 2007 at 12:26 am

  Jesus straight up loves you bro!

• 117.