I like the way this guy thinks, if you don't wish to read watch the video.
Reading the Bible (Or the Koran, Or the Torah) Will Make You an Atheist
http://bigthink.com/ideas/20808?utm...Maps_Newsletter_July_22_2011&utm_medium=email
Question: How did you become an atheist?
Penn Jillette: In my church group in Greenfield, Massachusetts at the age of about 16 or 17, I had made a deal with my mom and dad—I was very, very close to my mom and dad. I'm a real momma's boy and got along with them my whole life, hardly even rough periods. And they went to the Congregationalist church: The Church of the Covered Dish Supper in Greenfield, Massachusetts. Massachusetts is an old enough state that you could not charter a town without having a Congregationalist church and this was the first one in out town. I mean, from back 200 years ago.
And I made a deal with my mom and dad that I wouldn't have to go to church services Sunday morning if I went to youth group Sunday night. So we had a pastor—that minister at that church—that was fairly hip, you know, he was trying to deal with the children, play a Jim Morrison song once in a while. Played the Beatles. Far out! And he sincerely wanted us to do some inquiry into theological questions and I took it very seriously. I may have been the only in the youth group that did take it seriously and I read the Bible cover-to-cover and I think that anyone who is thinking about maybe being an atheist... if you read the Bible or the Koran or the Torah cover-to-cover I believe you will emerge from that as an atheist. I mean, you can read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, you can read "God Is Not Great" by Hitchens... but the Bible itself, will turn you atheist faster than anything.
Question: Why would reading the Bible make you an atheist?
Penn Jillette: I think because what we get told about the Bible is a lot of picking and choosing, when you see, you know, Lot's daughter gang raped and beaten, and the Lord being okay with that; when you actually read about Abraham being willing to kill his son, when you actually read that; when you read the insanity of the talking snake; when you read the hostility towards homosexuals, towards women, the celebration of slavery; when you read in context, that "thou shalt not kill" means only in your own tribe—I mean, there's no hint that it means humanity in general; that there's no sense of a shared humanity, it's all tribal; when you see a God that is jealous and insecure; when you see that there's contradictions that show that it was clearly written hundreds of years after the supposed fact and full of contradictions. I think that anybody... you know, it's like reading The Constitution of the United States of America. It's been... it's in English. You know, you don't need someone to hold your hand. Just pick it up and read it. Just read what the First Amendment says and then read what the Bible says. Going back to the source material is always the best.
When someone is trying to interpret something for you, they always have an agenda. So I read the Bible and then I read Bertrand Russell and I read a lot of other stuff because in the Greenfield public library the 900's of the Dewey Decimal System... I mean, one of the few people that still remembers it, the 900's are theology. They're only about this long but that's all on camera. Only about this long, the one armed guy who caught a fish this big. They're only about this long and so I read a lot of them. I started going go to class and, to his credit, the pastor who was a wonderful man, wonderful man would let me talk to him about this stuff.
And finally after—I don't know, it's so long ago—but after months of this platonic questioning every night at youth group, the minister called my mom and dad and said, "You know, I think maybe Penn should stop coming to youth group, he's no longer learning about the Bible from me. He is now converting everyone in the class to atheism." So I was asked to leave—very politely, very nicely—youth group. And then with the help of Martin Mull, Randy Newman, Frank Zappa, the idea that these three men were out-of-the-closet atheists was so inspiring to me and so important to me. And reading interviews with somebody...
And I remember being somebody in a religious—and not a religious community like wack jobs, but, you know, in a community where most everyone was Christian—having those people in interviews say the simple sentence "There is no God" meant the world to me and gave me joy and gave me passion and gave me love and gave me confidence. And I think the first time I was interviewed, as presumptuous as this seems—and please forgive me—I remembered Frank Zappa's interviews. And I wanted to give a chance for someone else reading that to not feel they were alone. Now that's less important now. I mean, the population of atheists in this country is going through the roof. I mean, I'm now on the side that's winning.
It's over 20 percent by some polls and I believe if you counted atheism as a religion it's the fastest growing religion in the history of the United States of America. So now I'm on the team that's winning which is an uncomfortable position for me. But back, you know, 30 years ago, 40 years ago, it still felt like it meant something, you know, it's... we're several years behind gay rights but we're following a much faster path at acceptance.
Recorded on June 8, 2010
Interviewed by Paul Hoffman
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register
Erich R. Thompson on July 8, 2010, 12:07 PM
The Bible, Koran, and Torah all have one thing that makes them both great and flawed. They are all interpretations of man. These books were also written for the time period. The fact of the matter is, if there really is a God he might want to think about shaking things up before everyone loses faith in these archaic, biased opinions and subsequently lose faith in anything other than themselves. If there isn't a God, well, we are slowly but surely getting rid of some books full of some stories that an unprecedented amount of people hallucinated. Alas, either way, this might be quite a painful transition if the atheism trend continues but who knows it may make the world a better place. Socrates once said that ignorance is truly the definition of evil, so that being said, an atheistic world could only flourish in an age of higher intellects, supremely educated people, and limitless knowledge. There is one question I have for an age that could be a hundred to a thousand years from now, "What keeps you, a flawed, inperfect homo sapien with all of your own desires and wishes, in line with morals and ethics?" The fear of retribution from this universal consciousness, or of an afterlife of misery, or of a second life as a cockroach, keeps a whole slew of billions of people in line. Spirituality keeps people in order or at least is suppose to. No matter what the future holds, there is a great bumper sticker out there that always makes me smile "COEXIST" which is depicted as multiple religious symbols. Amen to that. Is anyone else tired of "self-righteous" mediocre minds running amok killing people in the name of a God that is suppose to represent pure order and harmony?
Nanette Bulebosh on July 8, 2010, 3:11 PM
I agree completely with Mr. Jillette. I began rejecting the Bible when I started paying attention to its treatment of women, especially those ridiculous tribal superstitions about when and how men need to avoid us. I mean, really. The rapes and incest are even more troubling.
I wouldn't want my children to read this book until they are much older. Too much genocide, violence and sexism for me to explain. The god of the OT comes across as a petulant child.
Just a small correction: The Dewey Decimal classification system delegates most religious texts to the 200s, and this is where you'll find these books in most public libraries. The 900s are history books, a section far more worthy of any reader's time than the religious books.
Keep thinking. Keep reasoning!
Bracken Macleod on July 8, 2010, 5:11 PM
Note for the transcriptionist: In the first paragraph Jillette is talking about his old "Congregationalist" church.
http://bit.ly/9IreK8 There's no such thing as a congregationless church.
Donna Rowe on July 8, 2010, 7:06 PM
The 900s in the Dewey Decimal system are geography and history, Penn. The 200s are theology.
Jim Schultz on July 8, 2010, 9:46 PM
Listening to Jillette inspires me to intensify my search for God. I am not that interested in a Frank Zappa inspired worldview, and Bertrand Russell was not a great role model either. Jillette makes the search for understanding sound like a big sporting match. If it is - I think I'll stay on God's team Thank You.
Zachs Mind on July 9, 2010, 7:14 PM
Jim Schultz, if you do nothing else Jillette suggests, I urge you to please read the bible from cover to cover. Heck, the first five books of the OT would be more than enough for me. Or better yet, try reading the four gospels in the NT vertically, comparing the testimonies of the four different authors with each event of JC's life from birth to magically disappearing from the tomb after the stone was pulled aside and complete strangers mull about claiming they saw him fly off. If you're still on your imaginary friend's team after all that, you drank too much of the Flavor-Aid, and also must think Penn Jillette can really pull rabbits out of a hat.
Randall A Johnson on July 10, 2010, 3:18 AM
The Bible succeeds becuase it is not read. The lazy masses just accept as a given that the few passages carefully selected for their sensitive ears by the vicar of their choice are representative of the work as a whole.
And the Bible is very easy to read if you skip over all the insignificant begattings. We should not be in the least surprised they choose the easy answers over science because that can be very difficult to read and does not generally lend itself to short, simplistic and warm fuzzy snippets.
Our politics in America are much the same. The slickest presentation coupled with the most fear-mongering of slogans consistently manage to convince the poorer segment of our society to vote against their own best interests.
I fear as history unfolds, our reign as the "it" nation above all others will be brief and is fraying at the edges already.
Lance Keimig on July 11, 2010, 10:48 AM
I'm stepping off topic here for a minute, but, I think it's relevant. Erich Thompson made the great point above that the bible, koran, and torah were written for their own times, and should be interpreted as such. I whole-heartedly agree.
I'd like to ask Mr Jillette why he feels the same doesn't hold true for the US constitution. Clearly, times have changed dramatically since it was written, but conservatives like Mr Jillette insist that it must be interpreted literally, even though much of it is no longer relevant due to progress and developments made in the last 200 years. Surely, we are strong enough ad mature enough to understand that the constitution should evolve as we do.
chuck vonderahe on July 11, 2010, 10:04 PM
@LANCE KEIMIG The constitution does evolve. That's what those 27 amendments to the constitution are all about. The lieble however hasn't changed (except at the selfish direction of religious leaders when making changes centuries ago for their own benefit) since the guys sat in a tent, in the heat, in the sand 3000 - 1500 years ago apparently smoking some great weed.
Jim Schultz on July 11, 2010, 10:26 PM
Zachs Mind - Why must the debate always go to science vs. religion ? Science and religion are different enterprises and serve different purposes in our lives. Science deals with the HOW and is about discovering facts. Religion deals with questions such as WHY we are here and the purpose of the universe. We only get in trouble when religion tries to answer science questions or science tries to answer religious questions. For example a surgeon knows all the parts of the brain, but he does not know a patient's dreams, his joys, his aspirations. We need to move past this false war of science vs. religion that is driven by the radicals at the fringes (crusading atheists and flat earth fundamentalists). I have a biology and chemistry degree and I believe in God. I don't see a conflict. In fact they are synergistic.
Jim Schultz on July 12, 2010, 12:17 AM
Sorry ZACHS MIND - the previous comment was not appropriately directed as a response to your comment. You said because the Bible is confusing than that causes doubt on the existence of God (basically). I think religion, any religion, is man's rather feeble attempt to understand a reality beyond us. For the creation to understand the creator. Religion tries to answer the WHY question - why are we here ? The great spirits of religious traditions do not solve all questions but live in the questions themselves.
Jim Newell on July 14, 2010, 8:01 PM
Jim Schultz--please read the Bible. Really read it. Do yourself a favor.
Jim Schultz on July 14, 2010, 9:56 PM
Jim Newell- OK. I have read many parts of the Bible at different points in my life. I have already conceded it is confusing. My point is on the logic: because the Bible is confusing and at times contradictory, and because religious people have done and are doing bad things - does that lead to the conclusion that there could not possibly be a God ? It is the logic many atheists use to try to prove to me that there is no God. To me it proves that humans are far from perfect. Remember that while the universe is 12 - 14 billion years old, our human brains evolved from primordial mush not that very long ago. It is not that suprising to me that the creation has a hard time describing or understanding the creator. Does Goofy really understand the mind of Walt Disney ? That is my point and I am sticking to it. Do ME a favor and bring me a different arguement
Jim Schultz on July 14, 2010, 10:15 PM
After having listened to all of Jillette's segments, I now have a better appreciation of where he is coming from. I totally agree with many of his libertarian view points. I also realize now that he is not a crusading atheist, or a secular progressive mouth piece. While I still don't want to join his team, I would considering watching his team more often.
kieran rovaldi on December 29, 2010, 10:15 PM
Like Penn himself would say, this is bull&*^%! He himself is taking “parts” of the Bible out for his own argument. If you read the rest of the Bible you clearly see God is not “ok” with rape and other sins, as Penn suggests! Heck, he doesnt even talk about his discussions with the pastor, or mention his argument for atheism, he just says “how can God be this way?” which is not really atheism. If he read the Bible cover to cover as he suggests, I think he wouldnt be making the same argument.
kieran rovaldi on December 29, 2010, 10:27 PM
You guys are soooo ridiculous! All you talk about is the OT the OT! God is bad! WAHHH! Why dont you actually read the Bible in entirety instead of just the first five books!? And you know what the first five books show me? That God doesnt take crap from mankind! That He is the ruler and the One in power! That He is just and punishes the sin that so deserves punishment! How would you like it if some guy murdered your family and got away with it, even though they had evidence and caught him? Would you be ok with that? Because Ill tell you God isnt, sin must be punished. And you know what God did, even though we were His worst enemy? He sent His only begotten Son, Jesus, to die on a cross, taking our punishment for sin, and resurrect so that we could be forgiven and be reunited with Him forever and ever! Sounds like a pretty damn good and righteous God to me! Would you offer up your son to die for your worst enemy? I know I couldnt, unless God helped me!
Rude Lee Waken on December 31, 2010, 5:48 AM
It is really annoying to see the prolific use of entertainment celebrities to make a critique on matters of religion that they have no real starting point of knowledge to express from other than an adolescent experiences.
I’m not defending the “youth pastors” ignorance of 2500 BC cultural practices of the Canaanites, in fact I wish to state here that the majority of those who have gone to college and received a degree in “Ministry” only take about 4 semesters of biblical studies. To put that into perspective; that is equivalent to 2nd grader’s understanding of mathematics.
I find that it is equally annoying that those who do go on to study the language, culture and historical setting of every book of the bible (who could have answered Penn) are not the ones who are pastors and teachers of churches. There are more than one book that addresses Bertrand Russell’s sometimes inane criticisms. There is a book that answers Richard Dawkins’ delusional writings as well. But pastors and lay teachers don’t want to deal with these issues as Penn illustrates. What makes it so frustrating to apologists is that no matter how much research and writing they do, the people on the front line are afraid to have their little worlds rattled. Think of it this way: People go to church to learn about their G-d (God), one to two hours a week, from someone, who knows very little about that G-d he’s trying to explain. Most of the sermons, have very little to do with research of what is actually in the book, like Joel Osteen. But none the less people come every week to hear the guy or girl in front tell people what G-d is like.
FYI, people during the time of Abraham considered women as property, daughters were a liability and sons not only acted as farm laborers, but served as protection from marauding tribes. Lot may have offered his daughters to the dudes outside, but G-d’s messengers prevented that. It was also a practice at the time in Canaan, to sell your daughter(s) into prostitution to earn extra money if crops didn’t do so well. When Moses wrote down the Levitical law, G-d says don’t do it. Lev 19:29. God does care for women’s dignity in the OT, but I think it best to start with sayings of Jesus first.
Rude Lee Waken on December 31, 2010, 12:14 PM
An atheist approached me with the query in one of those online Chat Rooms, “Have I ever heard of or read Bertrand Russell?” I responded with, “Are you a Rationalist or an Empiricist?” He claimed he was a Rationalist as Russell. I exclaimed, “Oh really, do you find it difficult to type, as you know he is dead, are you dead?” The gentleman ceased to be a gentleman at that point, for he failed to understand that I was humoring him. He most sternly replied, I do say, in all caps, which as you know, is a form of shouting, “NO, I AM NOT DEAD.” I then quietly replied, “Then how do I know if it is you who is writing words on my screen? I have no proof, ‘MrShermer’, other than the one who is typing is alive. I am alive as well, does that make us equally alive or equally undead?” Then, I do say, the chap, I am making an assumption he was a chap by his moniker, got really irritated at me, for he stated, again in all caps, “ANSWER MY ?#@& DAMN QUESTION.” My word! I thought to myself (and I was thinking), I had to leave off some of the superlatives; you know you can be thrown out of these virtual discussion rooms. I answered him, “yes, I have studied some of his writings, but not while he was alive.” At this point, I do say, I had to ask, “What is your point?” I can’t understand it, but the chap left the Chat Room. – Bertrand’s Chat Room – R. L. Waken
loren goodman on January 7, 2011, 10:50 PM
How can anybody say that the Bible is God’s word , or that the verses & phrases in their bible are words by God? He is not human. He cannot write, yet us humans have amassed page after page in a book , and call it God’s Word .For thousands of years man has lived, killed, and died over these phrases. If you stand back & look over this worldly human experience, and look at what humankind has done in the name of their god.. it is as close to insanity as I think you can get.
Back to the origional statement . .. God didn’t write even one of those words
Jim Schultz on January 27, 2011, 12:02 AM
Speaking of Bertrand Russell, he offers an honest view of a world without GOD in “A Free Man’s Worship”.
“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins – all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s salvation henceforth be safely built.“
Have a nice day
Jack Howard on March 4, 2011, 7:17 AM
Tell Bracken Macleod that “congregationalist” and “congregationless” are not the same things. His ignorance is typical of the ignorant, hysterical, and uneducated supporters of religion.
Steve Fey on July 21, 2011, 1:59 PM
The ability to read is what got me out of Methodism. I couldn’t live like the old testament Jews, and the requirements to be Christian are just too strict. Technically I’m a Unitarian, but that’s sort of like saying I’m an earthling. Nice, but what does it really mean?
Kevin Porter on July 21, 2011, 5:36 PM
[Guess this is an old post, but got here from a recent tweet so I’ll comment anyway]
There are a lot of things I was taught growing up that didn’t stand up to scrutiny later in life, but I have read the Bible and I still consider it relevant and divinely inspired. I believe that God has worked through different means and expected different kinds of observances through the centuries, but I see the same God from beginning to end.
It’s interesting to compare to the US Constitution, because I think my fundamentalist upbringing has given me a great respect for founding documents in general. With the Constitution we have a process for amendments and the ability for the courts to clarify how a particular passage applies to modern society. I disagree with some amendments and court decisions, but the process is designed to give us the government we deserve with a lot of inertia to prevent wild changes we’ll regret later, and it seems mostly effective at that.
The difference with the Bible is that it’s purpose is to guide an individual into a relationship with God. Every person is to make of it what they will, with the assistance of God’s spirit. There’s no supreme court that decides what money you should give to the church or what kind of car you should drive. There’s lots of advice and wisdom out there, but ultimately a person’s relationship with God is their own.
