Primarily, Roberts is poking fun at the religious people that insist all gods but theirs aren’t real, whatever the reason.
After all, it is a bit silly to say ‘these gods, whose only proof of existence is this collection of ancient stories, are totally made-up, but my god, whose only proof of existence is this collection of ancient stories, is totally 100% real’.
Second, I don’t know that I would call Atheism or Agnosticism a religion. A system of belief in scientific rigors and facts is not really the same thing. While it’s true that you cannot prove a negative, we have no real evidence of any god existing.
And you’d think that a god that could split the seas and turn people into salt, or turn people into dolphins or flowers or whathaveyou, would be somewhat noticeable. If only in the bulls and swans obsessed with courting young ladies.
Great comment. I am tempted to continue the conversation.
Instead, I will finish by saying that, in my view, any system of belief seeking to describe the nature of reality that relies primarily on faith to provide certainty is a religion. Favouring faith over evidence is especially qualifying.
I would consider many of the atheists I have spoken to or read about to be religious by the above definition.
Many of those famous for being atheist certainly meet the criteria. Richard Dawkins has said that he “believes” science can answer any question despite science itself saying that it cannot ( Bell’s Theorem and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorum for example ). PZ Meyers has gone as far as to say that there is no evidence possible that would convince him that God exists ( even Jesus appearing before him I recall ). If that is not religion, I do not know what is. It is certainly not science.
So, a couple of points:
Primarily, Roberts is poking fun at the religious people that insist all gods but theirs aren’t real, whatever the reason.
After all, it is a bit silly to say ‘these gods, whose only proof of existence is this collection of ancient stories, are totally made-up, but my god, whose only proof of existence is this collection of ancient stories, is totally 100% real’.
Second, I don’t know that I would call Atheism or Agnosticism a religion. A system of belief in scientific rigors and facts is not really the same thing. While it’s true that you cannot prove a negative, we have no real evidence of any god existing.
And you’d think that a god that could split the seas and turn people into salt, or turn people into dolphins or flowers or whathaveyou, would be somewhat noticeable. If only in the bulls and swans obsessed with courting young ladies.
Great comment. I am tempted to continue the conversation.
Instead, I will finish by saying that, in my view, any system of belief seeking to describe the nature of reality that relies primarily on faith to provide certainty is a religion. Favouring faith over evidence is especially qualifying.
I would consider many of the atheists I have spoken to or read about to be religious by the above definition.
Many of those famous for being atheist certainly meet the criteria. Richard Dawkins has said that he “believes” science can answer any question despite science itself saying that it cannot ( Bell’s Theorem and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorum for example ). PZ Meyers has gone as far as to say that there is no evidence possible that would convince him that God exists ( even Jesus appearing before him I recall ). If that is not religion, I do not know what is. It is certainly not science.