Photo: Michael Buckner/Getty
Sarah Silverman is a comedian who's become known for her biting critiques of religion which she incorporates in her stand-up comedy shows. It will thus come as no surprise that she describes herself as godless - such critiques can indeed come from believers, but they seem to come more often from nonbelievers who stand outside of religious traditions.
It's probably also no surprise that Sarah Silverman describes herself as "fascinated" by religion. Aside from the fact that her sister is a rabbi, people who don't care about religion don't also invest much effort into critiquing it. That said, though, what is a surprise - and a disappointment - is that despite admitting being godless, she thinks that other godless people are "obnoxious."
I'm godless, but I'm fascinated by religion. I think there is a lot of beauty in religion. I also think it's responsible for a massive amount of human deaths, and I think Jesus, should he have been real, would be disgusted with a lot of the people that use his name to justify things like hatred or unacceptance... it's very not Jesus-y. ...
I don't like to say "atheist" because I feel like atheists have that same chip on their shoulder that people who feel like their religion is the only right thing have. It's to know something, to think you know something definitively that, I feel, we as mere mortal humans can't possibly know. I think it's just as obnoxious. I'm Agnostic. I don't know, and neither do you!
I wonder how it is that Sarah Silverman thinks she can definitively know that "god" is something that mortal humans can't possibly know? How is it that she isn't being obnoxious? How is it that she isn't being obnoxious in asserting that since she doesn't think she can know something, the no one else can either? Why is everyone else on the planet restricted by Silverman's personal limitations?
This is, sadly, an affliction we see all too often among those who most loudly proclaim their agnosticism while decrying atheists (despite technically being atheists themselves). They insist that atheists are smug, arrogant, and obnoxious while at the same time smugly proclaiming their own arrogant superiority over non-agnostics. An interesting facet of their position is how they single out atheists for attack despite the fact that they should be lumping both atheists and theists in category of those who are "inferior" for not being sufficiently "agnostic."
In effect, the position they proclaim can be presented as: "the rest of you are wrong to insist that you know for sure and arrogant to think you're better than others because of it; lucky for me I know for sure that I don't know and am better than you because of it."