Making Light: All Religions are UPG

[MrModerate]

29. I'd prefer not to be rude, so I'm merely going to characterize this article as "piffle" . . .

Rather than the stronger language it might actually deserve.

Aside from a certain self-indulgent solipsism, the first three paragraphs are at least not grating, but then the author falls on his/her face in graph 4 by grossly misstating the atheist's point of view.

Atheists don't argue that you can't prove a god exists, only that no one has ever done so. If there were any evidence for the existence of god(s) we'd certainly expect the religious to use that evidence. But there isn't, and so they can't.

And THAT is the atheist's argument: because there is zero evidence that god(s) exist, there is zero reason to behave as if they do. Many atheists believe with a moral certainty that there is in fact no supernatural component of the universe whatsoever, but realize that it would be foolish to attempt to prove a negative. And so we don't try. We are content to live our lives happily godless.

The rest of the article quickly degenerates into self-parody, with the author unwilling to commit, one way or the other, to the possible divinity of Batman or the White Rabbit. The attempt to tie this together with the truly laughable concept of 'Unverifiable Personal Gnosis' and the notion that anyone would take reports of such experiences as being in any way meaningful, is pretty much the nail in the theological coffin.

Until the author reveals that this strategy of accepting everyone else's truth as literal is his crafty means of maintaining interfaith dialog — at which time the shambling corpse of self-referential silliness rises from the grave and threatens to eat our brains.

Jesus wept (or perhaps it was the Mad Hatter).