Logical quote or simply foolish thinking?

Question

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen Roberts

I'm pretty sure most of you have heard of this quote before. I personally think it's a very excellent quote, but who am I to judge?
Do you think this is a great quote or an insignificant one?

Don't try to convert me or anything, just state your opinion on the quote.

I noticed that indeed the quote did not register with some people. In a nutshell, it says that out of all gods, you have picked one. This therefore means you are an atheist to other religions. Then it basically says, once you understand why you don't believe in other gods, you will understand why I don't believe in your god.

Answer 1

This is a great statement, but don't overestimate the reach of intellectual thought. Even though this is a fairly well circulated quote, there are many people who won't understand.

For those who are confused, Roberts is assuming that if you are religious, while you believe in YOUR god, you do not believe in the god(s) of other religions. That makes you an atheist within that other religion. Roberts' assertion is that everyone doesn't believe in some god, and an identified atheist believes in one less god than any monotheistic believer.

Answer 2

I'm not really strong on religion one way or the other, but the quotation seems illogical. Yes, an atheist says there is no god and yes, a number of people believe in the Judeo-Christian one God, but to say a monotheist is one step away from being an atheist is akin to saying a married person is one spouse away from being a bigamist. It's too big a leap to make for the argument to be considered logical.

Answer 3

I use that quote quite frequently. Bertrand Russell said something in a similar vein, which is somewhat more descriptive:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." ~ Bertrand Russell, "Is There a God?" commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine (1952: repr. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 11: Last Philosophical Testament, 1943-68, ed. John G. Slater and Peter Köllner (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 543-48, quoted from S. T. Joshi, Atheism: A Reader

"We are all 'teapot atheists'... I just happen to believe in one fewer teapots than you do." ~ Richard Dawkins, commenting on Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' vignette

Answer 4

I think both the atheist and the theist miss the point - they're both arguing about god concepts and beliefs and they're both treating the concepts/beliefs as non-symbolic. Stephen Roberts is, of course, correct when we consider beliefs and god images as literal. If, instead, we see all images and concepts about 'god' as symbolic (and in many cases, projections of people's egos) we can change our perspective. There's the Mystery of Existence itself (the fact that we're here at all and that, regardless of cosmology or belief, we're left with the fact that something -- even if it's only a potential or process - always existing and that our very existence is intimately dependent on that). Atheism is rejection of the theistic and ego-projected god concepts; theism is about making a god by projecting our thoughts and what we want. If, instead, we just treated these concepts and beliefs as symbolic and tools for a spiritual journey, then we don't need to engage in a battle of concepts.

Answer 5

faith is entirely too personal to be encapsulated so.

i am an agnostic for example, and i would have told stephen that when he understands how many ways there are to define "god", he will understand why i dismiss his vacuum that sucks all potential and undiscovered deities into it.

atheists don't get any further than christians claiming secret knowledge... i find this quote condescending, but i'm sure it is his intent.

Answer 6

It doesn`t apply in all the cases. What if i do not dismiss all the possible and impossible gods but i think that they are other names for the same entities that i believe in. It applies for some religions but for a freethinker like me it doesn`t.

Answer 7

One fewer God than one is zero, and only the latter defines an atheist. That makes it an illogical quote, not an excellent one.

Answer 8

Well blind faith will not see the intelligence behind this quote, because in their minds that would be blasphemous. I think it is an excellent, and well thought out.

Answer 9

I think that's a pretty apt quote... and it will probably go over quite a few heads.

Answer 10

That is a pretty good quote.