Basically, here we have a chance to state why we are not religious.
For myself, I was born into an Irish Catholic family living in the UK. Even as a very small child, I was never 'raptured' by the idea of Jesus or God. From that earlier stage, i could see that he spoke sense yet really, the idea that he could walk on water? No chance.
I used to have a small illustrated book on bible story for kids. There was one particular story that absolutely disgusted me - the 'slaughter of the innocents'.
Now, to find me at the tender age of about 5 or 6 would be around 1981 or 1982. So whether the rules of suitability were different then I don't know. However, this illustrated book was seriously graphic. I distinctly remember looking at this rendition of a man holding a very small baby by its hair and was using his sword to saw through its neck. There was a large pile of bodies of babies at his feet.
This seriously affected me. Perhaps, I felt even then that a loving god couldn't let that happen unless one didn't exist.
I am a passionate astronomer. Have been since I watched an episode of Sky at Night. I don't remember this but apparently I couldn't stop talking about stars afterwards. This was cemented after a visit to the now closed planetarium in london.
Naturally, I would read about astronomy and then obviously about its history and how this that and the other was discovered. I found it delightful how certain things had been discovered accidentally.
However, this route took me to the story of Galileo. What the catholic church did to him based on what they thought was right. It was so patently wrong, that I immediately equated the bible as a wrong thing as the reason for Galileo's treated stemmed from what that book said and stood for.
I sensed from the age of about 6 or 7, that the bible and the belief system it purported to support and promote was a stunting cancer on the progress of mankind. I think it unlikely that I worded it quite like that but the feeling it convenes is fairly close to the truth.
That and I found sunday mass boring.
Since I have grown, my reasons have become more sophisticated.
Now with my understanding of the bible, I have read some of it over time (know you're enemy!), and of course, the more i interact with people, the more excerpts I come across. Kinda like the highlights or summaries!
Ironically, I find that christianity to be quite dislocated from the teachings of jesus so it is now some perverse parody that supports wholly immoral acts such as genocide and slavery. (this is not an exhaustive list.)
Not to say that I believe he existed. Trust me, far from it. I mean, he walked on water? Brought the dead back? Turned water to wine and healed the sick/ blind? Nonsense. He said Following him is more important than family? Eh? Anti family dialogue from the `son of god'? Is that right? How then do people of a religious persuasion claim publicly that they `big up' `family values'. Of course, its more hijacking of genuine humanist morals draped in the gossamer veil of puerile tosh of religion. And what about the bit about Pray in private? I think they really messed up with mass don't you?
But with christianity's obsessive rantings about death and delight and near salivating anticipation of the afterlife, its obvious contempt for the world we find ourselves in, it is at it's basic tenant a death cult. Yet still suicide is a sin. But then the church are so militant against any form of potential life saving technology such as stem cell research it makes me wonder. Assisted suicide is battled against because presumably dying in either abject suffering or/and humiliation is somehow the lesser evil?
For me the reason for atheism is clear. A universe as the one we are in is so full of wonder that the idea of introducing a `god' to explain why is both distracting and takes the delight out of it. It promote intellectual lethargy. Where would the human race be if for any curiosity to be met by `don't worry, god did it'? Absolutely nowhere.
`As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful'
- Richard Dawkins from The God Delusion
How can anyone not feel completely tripped out at the consequences of Relativity? Time travel (admittedly one way) and the fact that as an object travels at a suitable speed of light, it becomes apparent that the object will stretch in the direction of travel. Weird huh? Beats a burning bush and a plague of locusts any day!
Also to experience that dizzyness of contemplating the size of the universe. The nearest galaxy is 2 million light years away! How about the fact that the elements in our body are also in the sun! That we can prove the big bang occured because of the existence of the Cosmic Microwave background radiation. I find it incredible that on an old analogue TV, when you have the `snow' of no receptopn, 1% is the echo of that explosion. You are looking at a fuzzy picture of the fossil of the start of everything we know. Or how watching animal programmes answers so many questions of why we are how we are and of course, the answer to how we got here! Good old evolution. I intend to raise a glass to the memory of Darwin - Happy 199th birthday Charlie!
History shows clearly that science really is the nemesis of religion. Where once it ruled supreme with its breath taking arrogant absolutist declarations of reality. From flat earth to the geo-centric garbage that was a death penalty for anyone who said otherwise.
Slowly but surely, religion is being eroded by the seas of reason that encroach its shores of ignorance. Now, the sea defences of religion have been pushed back to the undulating valley's of morals and the so called `transcendence' experience. Here, science in the form of neuroscience et al has laid siege and will slowly whittle away the fragile battlements of religion.
I have to confess (oop's cultural catholic there- says nothing about the truth of the supernatural claims!) that I'm enjoying myself here. it is quite liberating to put this in writing without attempts to shout me down or just simply call me names. However, I was getting carried away with the metaphors above so I will calm it down. Where was I?
Oh yes. Morals.
I am really supposed to believe that god gave me my sense of right and wrong? How can you explain to me that when I read that to work on sunday means death? Hang on. That can't be right. Also, why should I hate gays? What have they done? What possible harm can they do to you? Slavery? Well the bible comes with instructions on that.
As for the messages of love. Well, from the `creator of the universe', I would expect a little more insight than `do not kill'. Frankly, `He', is not setting a good example is he? It would appear that upon that declaration the footnote explain who and what is exempt from that went missing somewhere along the line. As for the love bit, well what about it? Do you think it was never heard of before jesus or god for that matter?
So. Back to morals. Where do they come from? I think for me living at the start of the 21st century, I obviously have a lot of social influence that would have soaked my brain as I grew up. We're post enlightenment and that surely helps.
However, I would quite happily declare that it is innate. This is choosing the harder option. For with the bible, koran or torah, depending on your `flava', its all there for you. Everything you need.
To me, that is intellectual suicide. Total and utter submission to another's will. It is a form of slavery so perhaps that explains why the good book comes with intructions on that.
In contemporary time, the tension occurs when your `bronze age living manual' shows exactly how outdated its thinking is when say the subject of abortion comes up. This always fascinates me.
I hear cries of life is important, sacred even. However this always appears to be a selective `life'. And it reinforces me view that even if you don't realise it, yours (as far as I can tell this doesn't include judaism - but I'm happy to see examples of the contrary) is one that takes an unhealthy satisfaction from ensuring the suffering of others for your own satisfaction.
Just how do you react when the birth of child will kill its mother? Or indeed if the baby has a defect that will either allow a short painful life or one that will not kill but ensure a life of pain and suffering for both the child and the surrender of a life for the parents that have to look after them? One particular example was the religious couple that wanted doctors to revive their greatly disabled daughter should she stop breathing. Amazingly, the daughter has lived yet the pressure of looking after her has caused her parents to separate and put the daughter into care.
It would be interested to hear the stories of others.
You may not have even had a religious background and even though the background is different, like me you were 'just not made that way'.
Conversely, it would be an interesting read for someone to start a blog on why they do believe.
Thats a very interesting Question. I suppose one obvious reason would be the old cliche of all the suffering that goes on in the world. I mean if god loved us and protected us etc why doesn't he save all those starving children? or women from being raped, or Men being kicked to death by three yobs for trying to improve his community? I know many of the religious contingent will always revert to the, " well god gave us free will, and wants us to live our lives independently etc" well if thats the case why worship something that isn't overly bothered about what we do? And if there was a god, and he doesn't save the innocent then it is not worthy of my worship. As George Carlin says "a world this sh***y doesn't belong on the CV of an all powerful being".
God is a man made, not vica versa, I can quite understand why the idea of 'God' is in our culture, it was a way to explain the unexplained, and a method to reassure and pin down the masses, not to mention how rich it has made some people and groups.
When it comes to Jesus, perhaps he was real, perhaps not. Maybe he is a collection of other peoples teachings neatly rolled into one super being, or maybe he was just an everyday guy who decided life sucked and it should be better, so he went out and told people about his ideas and views and the vast amount of poor, receptive ears who also wanted a better life liked what he was saying. But the miracles and the divinity, no, I can't subscribe to that, Jesus is only divine because Christianity needed a good selling point to attract 'punters' and this was it. And even their biggest draw, the resurrection wasn't exactly original, Osiris , Tammuz, Orpheus and Balder were all of divine or semi-divine birth, they flourished, were killed, and were reborn.
I suppose that as I was raised atheist and consider Myself to be 'moral', that would put an end to the religion gives you morality argument. And as you say the amount of things I've soaked up through society has a huge bearing, from teachers, and friends, to Saturday morning cartoon shows, I don't believe any 'one' thing is responsible for our morals.
Also like you I have read parts of the Bible and I too was horrified by some of the stories, and some of the messages. The idea of a young girl being given to a ruly mob, to appease their lust rather then let a male guest be beaten up is vile.
But one of the big reasons of my atheism is, Religion. I can not abide organised religion, it is growing richer and richer whilst it's followers get poorer and poorer. It places itself on a pedestal which is beyond questioning or disagreement. It also has (along with the bible) given rise to many dangerous cults, Branch Davidians, Aum, Scientology, Peoples Temple etc etc.
And I don't need to believe in god anyway, I am happy and content with my life and I think I'm doing pretty well, without 'God'.
The question as to why a person does not believe in God is indeed as the previous contributor has commented a very interesting one. For myself it probably goes back to when I was seven or eight years old, my parents (who had both been brought up as regular attendees of the C of E) never tried to push me one way or the other. There were however regular 'faith assembly's' at school where the children were divided up into various religious groups (Christian, Muslim, Sikh etc) though a non-faith alternative was not provided and as a 'white' child of no particular faith I was automatically herded into the Christian group for reasons that are still hard to fathom to this day, a Christian by default it would seem. I remember being told stories of the miracles of Jesus (water into wine, making a blind man see, the resurrection and so on) which we were encouraged to believe while later on in class we would regularly be read fairytales and the stories of Hans Christian Andersen. What I simply could not understand was while on the one hand we were told the stories of Jesus were real, on the other the fairytales were not to be taken seriously. Enjoyed yes, believed in no. What on earth was the difference between them?. My young mind thought that a tale like Hansel and Gretel had at least as likely a scenario as a dead man coming back to life and walking around with holes in his hands. I found it impossible to believe in one staggeringly unlikely thing and not the other, I couldn't be so selective.
I forget the exact context but some years later when I was about twelve I told a Muslim friend of mine that I didn't believe in god, his reaction completely stunned me. He looked at me with such an astonished and uncomprehending manner that it dawned on me the notion that god might not exist had never even registered in his brain, he'd taken it as a fact of life since he'd obviously been completely indoctrinated. After about twenty or thirty seconds he finally said "Well, your stupid then!". I found it quite scary that as far as religion and the existence of god was concerned he had a totally closed and unquestioning mind.
Since then I have regarded all religions as nothing better than brainwashing as it actively takes away an individual's freedom of choice and ability to think rationally about certain subjects, god being one of them.
If Dawkins shows us anything it's that the question itself is biased, top heavy and a perverse thing. It assumes that non-belief is a movement in its own right. Like those who don't believe in a God or superstitious mumbo jumbo answers to important questions should be put into some sort of minority sub set. The reverse is true. The default position of humans is to question things. The default position of religion is to provide simplistic uninformed answers to those questions then ring fence the answers with a sort of 'don't question me or I get really offended' type trip wire. Saying people who choose not to fill their lives with thousand year-old prejudices and outdated guesses about the universe are a group in their own right, is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Jeff
Mr Walsh, Why I don't believe in God. Because firstly i realised that the idea that there is a security camera in the sky remotely bothered about what we feel/do is crazy; otherwise sending people to hell because they shagged the girl next door at the same time as those who ordered the holocaust is either insane overkill or an insane overreaction. So that leaves us with a god who does not actually care much what we do... Then i found that the universe could be explained really well by the scientific method. except for the question perhaps "why are here" but then perhaps the problem there lies with the person who asks the question, after all does the universe owe us an answer to this question? The answers the theists give are totally arbitary anyway.
I feel that the only sustainable future for the world is atheism. anything else leads to mankinds self-destruction. Thats my short answer
Why do I not believe in a god? I just don't, I've never believed in such things to begin with, my mother was a scientist and my father would say "I don't believe in all that" so the idea of religion was never forced upon me. I am an atheist but not through choice, I couldn't believe in gods even if I wanted to, but given the choice I would certainly choose to be an atheist.
I'm a rational person and I seek rational answers, an invisible complex all-mighty creator just doesn't sit well with me, also when I don't have the answer to something I don't go grabbing a "just so" story to fill the void. I care about the truth and will seek that truth even if I don't like what I find, I'm not happy about the fact that my existence is meaningless but I place my own meaning upon my life.
As Bertrand Russell once said, if he found himself standing before God on the judgement day being asked, 'Why didn't you believe in me?': 'I'd say, "Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!"'. Besides anything else, why would such a powerful entity that created the entire universe be so egotistical as to demand that I worship it, such a trait sounds rather human to me, and isn't this being said by the very people that say we should stop applying human traits to god in order to understand him?
If God is both omniscient and omnipotent then he created me with the foreknowledge that I would refuse to worship him or acknowledge his existence without evidence, he also did so on the knowledge that at no point will I ever do so, therefore if God exists he must be perfectly happy with such "disobedience" because he foresaw and allowed it. Hence I have nothing to worry about.
Why I don't believe in God. Firstly I believe that most people who believe in god are really just following what they feel is the 'right' thing to do. I was never raised in a religious household nor did I attend a catholic school and yet I was expected to go to church with the school and was expected to pray at assembly in my high school years. Why? I would look around the room while the rest of the pupils bowed their heads (I was also seen as badly behaved because I refused to pray) and realized that around 80% had no idea why they were bowing there heads, had no idea if they believed in god or the bible. They did it because it was 'right'.
Which begs the question, why is it considered right to be a christian? To believe that sex before marrige is a sin, to believe gays are devients (ignore for a moment the perverse acts some priest have afflicted on their flock, abusing their power and status) to believe that no one is born without sin which suggests that even babies who are born but lets say sadly die from something like cot death will go straight to hell because as I said no one is born without sin.
Taking into account all things and the ten commandments who can a christian look anyone in the eye and say that they worship god, the god of love when he himself doesnt follow his own rules. A god of love that willingly murdered men, woman and children in the great flood (if the bible is to be believed).
And what about christians themselves? Who wear there christianity like a shield that deflects blame when they use their religion to account for their horrific acts. Murder, rape even war.
I think also that to call yourself a christian or a muslim or buddist or any one of the many religious that exist is well for want of a better word just lazy. It's like saying "Wow, we've found this amazing feat of nature, how did it happen....oh god must have done it. When you look at what has been proven and discovered by science it seems almost idiocy in my opinion to believe that god makes the tides move and god created man and earth. To me god stands in the way when it comes time to develop and grow and move in a new and better direction.
To finish up my rant, when man kills or destroys people say it's evil, but when god kills or destroys proof of which lives on the pages of the bible they say he moves in mysterious ways. I don't believe in god because I would rather put my faith in good sense and reason, in discovery and improvement than in a god who moves in homicidal 'mysterious' ways.
The simple answer to the question is that an absence of belief is actually the default position. It is up to those who have adopted a particular belief to explain why they have chosen it. The theist needs to justify why they believe. The atheist has nothing to explain.
I agree with J.A Foxton about the default position and having nothing to explain, but with one small exception.
As I have commented elsewhere on this site, the last bastion of the theist is the way in which the universe started and life arose on the earth. Until these questions are answered in convincing detail, the religious will always claim these two areas to be the realm of god. Find the solutions and religion will ultimately fall. It'll take a few generations but it will happen - and the sooner the better.
The human condition is that we cannot, as a species, accept our own mortality and take responsibilty for our time here. An alternative will always be provided by those either seeking domination of others or looking to bolster their own delusions.
The christians invented the devil, the adversary, to answer difficult questions and deter those who sought the truth.
Humans need to believe that there is more to life than 80ish years then nothing. It's just a shame that the theists have to be so up themselves when challenged. Can you imagine an atheist president of the US? No, neither can I.
The only thing that could possibly convince humanity to give up on self-impregnating sky zombies from the future is if god himself popped up and said sorry, it was all a con. And even then the religious would say it was a trick by the devil.
I agree that religion will not disappear in the near term. I'm talking about hundreds, maybe thousands of years time. And OK, there may be a few ill-educated people left in the world who will still believe, but mainstream belief will, I believe eventually die.
I'm afraid it's not as simple as this, God is placed at the beginning of the universe simply because the ignorance exists there for God to exist in, and hence any gap in our knowledge can be used to place God within. We call this the God of the gaps. Therefore to assume that placing God at the beginning of the universe is somehow plausible because it -sounds- plausible is a very deluded move indeed, a lack of evidence is not evidence and the burden of proof still lies upon theists to prove that God exists.
I'm not convinced that religion will fall completely, it will continue to be practised behind closed doors by selective groups, but that is where it belongs to begin with, behind closed doors and not used as a front to society.
This is exactly my point. God is being gradually pushed to the edges and the only residual area the religious might be looking to find him is the beginning of the universe. However, if science can come up with a powerful explanation for this, then there is no final place to go for religions. Of course, there will always be denial of the facts and the ignorant to deal with, but essentially this would, in my view, spell the long term end of religion as a major force.
Well, I don't have much of a religious background, but there was plenty of religion in school, so it was somehow the default to believe in "someone greater than man". Found the religious service mighty boring, and I'd like to remember that I wondered why the Almighty didn't have a sense of humour.
So it went with god in the back of my mind for thirty years until I picked up this red book with the point-blank title. Read it, started to think, read some more - Harris, Dennett, Blackmore, more Dawkins, and found that my early interest in science was rekindled, all my other superstitious beliefs (homepathy, accupuncture, reiki, etc) was in sharp decline and that god was put in his cultural place.
Not much sweat and tears here, more like clearing out unused junk to make room for better toys :)
For me it was very easy. I grew up in a family where faith was not part of live. I was never told that there is or the is not god. I had to make my own mind and I chose science. Religion spreads through family and society. No propaganda - no believers. As simple as that. That is why Dawkins is so outraged when kids are labeled from early age as say, "christian child" - I bet the number of believers would be vanishingly small if religion was not forced in the heads of the young. We do not allow alcohol, tobacco, porn and violent images to non-adults. Why not religion too? If anything, history shows that it is the most dangerous addiction of them all.
BTW, I find it very annoying when the spell checker of every damn program corrects me to write christian with capital C or god with capital G. At the same time words like life, love, planet do not "deserve" the capital. Propaganda works in many ways...
I read recently that Voltaire proclaimed that nobody would read the Bible within a century of his death. The irony is that one of his homes is now used by a Bible Society to translate and produce new Bibles. Whether we like it or not, the Bible is here to stay, and as long as it is around people will believe it.
Perhaps all the atheists should lead the example and do mass burning sessions of the Bible - go into churches and burn every Bible. If you find a Bible in a hospital or hotel room. Burn it. They did something similar in Nazi Germany and in Stalinist Russian and Communist China.
Be careful with your phraseology also, you might sound reasonable, but the implication (which I daresay comes from reading too much Dawkins) is that only the ill-educated believe in a God. That is not actually true, I know plenty of well-educated (including in the sciences) people who seem to believe in the impossible.
You maybe right in saying that the bible is here to stay and there will always be those that believe in it but we don't all have to burn stuff we don't agree with though do we?
Educated people also believe in the Gods you choose not to but I doubt you find it a satisfying argument in their favour. Not that that was what Dawkins was saying anyway. Strawmen arguments, however, are something that educated people don't believe in!
But that was not the point of my post - People who think that the Bible (and other religious writings) will not be around in 100 years time are being naive. The only way that will happen is if actually people start to become active in getting rid of religious writings. The sad thing is that there are some countries that are doing this very thing - except for there own 'religion'. Islamic states for example, and China (for different reasons). I, and I hope you, live in a country where both the Bible and The God Delusion can be sold and read and thrown away if unwanted. I would much rather have the freedom of this than the necessity of going underground with what I believe. However, having read God Delusion, I get the impression that Dawkins would much rather censor any religious writings and only allow non-religious things to be seen and heard - i.e. remove the freedom of choice.
Regarding the educated, I have to say that this is one of the things that came out clearly to me when I read the book well over a year ago now - Educated people who believe in a God are clearly mad! He misquotes C.S. Lewis, makes fun of a Harvard Educated physicist (how do you spell that?) and does not even deign to give any respect for scientists who do happen to believe in a god (of any kind). It is almost as though a 'God-fearing Scientist' is an oxymoron.
The only difference between the educated and the uneducated is that the former have learned to ask questions and the latter will go along with whoever is most convincing - or more likely whoever was the last to speak. If the educated truly are asking questions, The God Delusion has tons!
Sorry if you felt I didn't deal with the point of your post but it was built upon one man's poorly conceived thought that you projected on to atheists as a whole. It was straw-man. You start this one in the same way. Which people think the bible will not be around in 100 years? Not Dawkins or anyone I have met.
To repeat once again I agree that those who believe the bible or religion itself will not be around in 100 years are naive and I also don't think that removing it by force will get there any quicker. On the contrary I think such action will entrench such belief. I would always counter beliefs I disagree with, with educated arguments not violence or threats.
I do consider myself lucky to be living in a country that allows freedom of religious belief. I consider myself even luckier to be living in a age where greater answers are possible, than found any religion I have so far encountered.
This is why Dawkins is staggered that educated people find explanations from scriptures like the Bible intellectually satisfying. Science has far greater, vaster, further reaching, naturalistic explanations of our universe and existence that have so far not lead us to or require any supreme being we would call a God and certainly not indicated anything remotely close to the deities and explanations proposed by any religion.
I would say that the difference between the educated and the uneducated is that the former have learned to never stop asking questions. From my reading of Dawkins work I got the impression that Dawkins was in favour of further education rather than forceful removal of any belief. Both he and I believe that religious superstition will fall away in the face of the ever improving knowledge acquired through the scientific method. If the educated truly are seeking explanations, The Bible has none!
Incidentally what would you say to an educated Hindu, Muslim or ancient Greek about their belief in their God(s)?
My personal view is that is that the forced removal of bibles or any other form of literature will do nothing to stop people believing in religious nonsense. If anything, it will reinforce their beliefs, through a kind of literary martyrdom.
The most potent means of eradicating religion will be the relentless march of science and reason. The more we know and find out, the further to the edges god will be pushed until there is nowhere else to go. Sure, there will still be a few who will deny it, and there are likely to be pockets of believers left here and there in the world, but by and large religion will be pushed aside more and more. How long will it take? I don't know. Maybe a thousand years, but it will happen.
Why am I so sure? If you look back a few hundred years, the educational level of the average person was very low and his knowledge base very poor. Now, any reasonably educated person probably knows far more than the educated few in those days and this trend will continue, with ever greater numbers of people becoming enlightened. Eventually, it will be regarded as ludicrous or backward to believe in religion and all it currently stands for. As science and progress moves forward this position will be accentuated and reason will win the battle. Its just a matter of how long it will all take. The sooner the better in my view, considering how much progress man might have made over the last 2000 years if religion hadn't got in the way.
1. Science will never disprove God. Science is the study of nature, not God. Many scientists are Christian (or Muslim or Hindu). I am a physics graduate as well as a bible believing Christian.
2. Religious organisations can distort true religion. The teachings of the Roman Catholic church degenerated over the course of a thousand years, leading to the Reformation. The whole purpose of the Reformation was to return to true, biblical Christianity. It seems to me that the originator of this thread needs to distinguish between his Catholic upbringing and what true Christianity is and what the bible teaches. (Incidentally, the Psalm 19:1 states that the "heavens declare the glory of God" - in other words, that the order and immensity of the universe demonstrates God's power and majesty - many people praise God because of the universe!!!)
3. Religion is for the educated (and the uneducated) David Groom wrote that he expects as education increases, it will eventually become "ludicrous or backward to believe in religion". Christianity has been a driving force for education in Britain for hundreds of years! Most of my Christian friends have university degrees. (I am a science teacher). Most of my fellow church members read and study the bible, and other books on theology, science, philosophy, psychology... and other disciplines too! You're view of Christians is naive.
4. You can't make a child into a Christian (but you can make them religious) In response to Kyle Katarn (above), and Deluded Dawkins... You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Good Christian parents want the best for their children and so bring them up to understand the bible. Whether or not the child (or later as an adult) accepts it or not is down to them individually. The same with the children of atheists, I would imagine.
What is Dawkins' answer to his fear of indoctrinating children? To indoctrinate them himself... Have you seen his recent series on Darwinism where he tries to persuade (not intellectuals or even adults but) SCHOOL CHILDREN to his point of view? The man is a hypocrite.
I should also point out that MANY people convert to Christianity from other religions or from atheism as informed, educated ADULTS.
You know, I could pretty much answer all these questions by quoting from the book, but then that would mean you haven't read it. Do us a favour and try reading it, and stop asking every question that has been asked a hundred times before.