Maybe it’s just me, but it seems the religious don’t actually acknowledge we are robots. Perhaps it’s because powerhouse religions all fall back on their own traditions that each had spawned so far back in time that robots were then inconceivable unlike today wherein they make good sense. Maybe. According to the religious we are souls if not known as something else that by another name implies but the same, that we are magic people who defy the natural order of life and death. That is what I take from the religious at large, but this doesn’t mean we’re robots necessarily at least according to common interpretations held by the religious that also categorically over sweeps mankind from a treeless monkey to his dual citizenship between earth and heaven, which in many opinions of the skeptical is, although concluded as if so, brashly done at that as it is a conclusion that does not focus all so much on how things could be so but strictly on what things are rather and for which only vague support is offered from physical science that is employable for use by one’s logic and one’s mind to extrapolate thereabout, ascertain truth and have the conclusion made makable for oneself; perhaps this is so especially in light of a given person’s referential exclusivity to one prescriptive text among a lot of all inherently exclusionary books that although ancient and didactic propel faith to this day regardless of whether for the correct reason, factuality, which in fact, all such books well do to satisfy as God certainly exists; the answer to the question though if we’re robots is not really what it is with the religious even though it’s logic friendly, semantically compelling and philosophically mindful.