I didn’t say that “it’s just a new god,” I said:

The notion that history is just on some inevitable pre-planned path is not a new idea, except now the actor has changed from God to technology.

This is a more nuanced sentence.

Before that quoted sentence you drew a line from the reformation to people believing that AI is inevitable, then went on to imply these people may even believe such a thing will happen without the involvement of people. These are generalizations which don't fit a lot of the literature and make their best ideas look a bit sillier than they are. It is situations like these that make me think that analogies are better suited as a debate tactic than a method of study.