7 ms·

Spluh, it's because they're smart.

robg 18y ago
Or lazy. Coming late to this game, I'm still surprised by this attitude in CS circles. To me, an atheist has refused to see the problem in defining one simple term: "God". Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry. As a neuroscientist, I know that finite matter gives rise to visions of the infinite. To me, that itself is an awe-inspiring moment for which I have no rational basis. Call it what you will (even delusion) but the challenge is to explain it away when no explanation seems adequate. Of course, solving for "God" need not be tied to a particular faith. On it's own, it's a personal undertaking where rejecting an understanding in being atheist is certainly one's right. But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position.
- dfranke 18y ago
  All Sagan's books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man. An American student wrote to me that she had asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is religion!' But is 'religion' the right word? I don't think so. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory: Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal. Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'. --Dawkins
  - robg 18y ago
    Pantheists do find God in a lump of coal. So too do coal miners and energy conglomerates. :) Aquinas called God "Pure substance through pure act". It's very hard not to see a definition of matter and energy there and given by a "Saint". Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?
    - dfranke 18y ago
      So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.
      - robg 18y ago
        And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? Dawkins is substituting one definition for all definitions. Problem is, his definition is neither necessary nor sufficient. Furthermore, the traditional problem with organized religion is the same: specific, and sometimes powerful, people failing to see that outcome with their own definitions. Sure, "God" could be whatever you want it to be. But that's exactly the point. It's a personal relationship (or lack thereof) defined by you. And no amount of science can take that away. If anything, the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) deepens my appreciation for the religious perspective.
        0x44 18y ago
        And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? That statement has no meaning. There is no fundamental understanding regarding the concept of "outside time and space", because our knowledge of them both derives from experience. To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however. Since, we can readily determine that the difference between believers and non-believers is a matter of experience. The difference between the two has nothing to do with "outside" either time and space, because that "outside" is not experiencable (at this point in time).
- DougBTX 18y ago
  Understanding "God" as a "Personal God" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god) is by no means limited to CS circles, I'd say it is the default position in much of the western world. Beyond that, yes, you're probably right: a broader definition of god would probably lead to less people calling themselves atheist. I'm not sure how you would go about expanding the definition, it seems like any religion which says "this is what god is" will have a natural advantage over one which says "god is whatever you like", since people are better at coming together over things which they share, rather than things they agree not to share.
  - robg 18y ago
    But if anything, I'd expect programmers to be willing and interested in writing their own definition. The problem only comes in when one assumes that's the only definition. Still, programmers seem more, not less, amenable to re-write when something isn't right.
    - randallsquared 18y ago
      Why bother with redefining someone else's term for your own use? It seems more straightforward to come up with your own term, if the concept doesn't match in the first place.
      - robg 18y ago
        That, I think, is a fine question. The emergence of "spirituality" is seemingly one approach to get around the term. For me, I'm okay with struggling with the term because it leads to good discussions with folks of differing persuasions.
      - DougBTX 18y ago
        Why bother with redefining someone else's term for your own use? If you think that someone stole your term, or at least your term's historical meaning, then it's fair enough to fight to take it back. You'll have problems communicating with people who don't remember the less-common meaning until you remind them of it, but that might be a price worth paying.
- pg 18y ago
  Or lazy. No, the lazy choice is to have the visions of the infinite you mention and instead of trying to understand them, simply to describe them in terms of whatever traditional concepts are floating around in your culture-- which in this case are at best 99% anthropomorphizing fable, and often consciously designed to enslave you.
  - robg 18y ago
    That's a very strict definition that I mostly agree with to understand the past. But it still leaves the leading question unaddressed. The solution to rejecting something isn't replacing it with nothing. By "understand them", I think that can operate on many levels simultaneously. The key for me is either giving up traditional concepts or reinterpreting them in contemporary terms.
  - jsrn 18y ago
    No, the lazy choice is to have the visions of the infinite you mention and instead of trying to understand them, simply to describe them in terms of whatever traditional concepts are floating around in your culture. maybe it's not an either-or choice. E.g., Don Knuth manages to be a (non-lazy) scientist who has thought a lot about infinity and a Christian at the same time.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Perhaps some of us have grown out of our traditional concepts designed to enslave us and have managed not to have visions of the infinite (study of infinities is a fairly mature science, btw) but still understand the need for a taxonomy of the unknowable? The lazy is on you, it seems, for making all kinds of straw man arguments here. Surely 99% of belief in God is based on culture and anthropology, but 99% is not 100%. You do the topic a disservice to say that it is. Personally? I find it funny when people say they're an atheist. "How do you know what not to believe in?" is my first question, and usually that shuts them down. You see, atheism is a response to those traditional cultural ideas of religion (and the history of how they have evolved), not to the real concept of a God. To the atheist, God, santa clause, the christian church, the easter bunny, etc -- it's all the same thing. Stuff you can't prove. They haven't grown to understand where the definitional fault lines are. That's lazy.
- aswanson 18y ago
  While I welcome the debate, I don't think this is the forum for it. All we will end up doing is insulting one another leaving opinions unchanged. It's been proven time and again that this type of stuff only results in flamewars. !HN
  - maw 18y ago
    Only somebody with beliefs so different from my correct beliefs would say something so stupid.
    - aswanson 18y ago
      :)
- as 18y ago
  "As a neuroscientist, I know that finite matter gives rise to visions of the infinite." I'm pretty sure this doesn't mean anything.
  - robg 18y ago
    "finite matter" = the ~3.5lbs of squishy grey stuff between your ears and all the material stuff that leaves an impression upon it "visions of the infintite" = can mean many things that approach that limit = Pi = recursion of indefinite length = time "before" matter = the number of possible synaptic connections ... What makes them interesting "visions" - to me - is our intellect can just about get our fingers those concepts and then...indeed, I know not the bounds of this inquiry And studying semantic memory in the brain, I have no idea where a concept like "infinity" comes from. Sure it might come from the brain? It must! Right? Right!? :)
    - as 18y ago
      I don't see a coherent argument here, which further suggests that it doesn't mean anything. Our having a concept of infinity has no metaphysical significance. All our definitions are phrased negatively, by what it's not: Infinite: That which has no limit. From the Latin 'infinitas', meaning 'unboundedness'. Try and see if you can define infinity by what it is rather than what it isn't.
      - robg 18y ago
        What, exactly, do you think I'm trying to argue? To me the question is exactly whether having a concept of infinity has metaphysical significance. I think no good answer is humanly possible. Your definition is just as tautological as anything offered in the positive. That's exactly the problem.
        as 18y ago
        That's the problem, it's hard to tell what you're saying.
- IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
  Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry. But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position. Well, obviously I believe in "nature" and "universe" and "matter". But praying to these things is silly, because they don't have minds and can't hear you. That's not what "God" means. What "God" means, to the majority of english speakers at least, is some form of magical super-fairy who created the universe and loves you. And no, I don't believe in magic or super-fairies, and I am not convinced that the universe's has a creator, and if it does, I'm further not convinced that said creator would necessarily be loving, or even have emotions as you and I conceive them. The slippery definition is a common tactic. You can't just redefine the term until it's something we all agree on, and then pretend that you're still talking about the same thing that we were disagreeing with. Either God is a magical ghost, or it's nature. If it's nature, then let's stop pretending that this is about deities and theism, and admit that we're just using poetic terms to talk about physics, declare that praying accomplishes no more than any other kind of meditative activity, and stop treating "religion" as any more special than sports or soap operas. I'd be ok with that.
  - robg 18y ago
    Honestly it's not a "tactic" for me. I've come up with a workable definition that I'm very comfortable with. Luckily my wife and I mostly agree - and she's Indian. That's good enough for us - my definition doesn't have to work for you. And prayer, for me, is simply finding a stillness in my mind. You're insisting on a set of concepts that never worked for me. So I gave them up. It's still weird for me that this thread is filled with this common response, among folks very comfortable writing their own definitions on a daily basis, but this subject area provokes resistance but not reformation. By "Nature", where does that end for you? This planet? Or the solar system? The universe? Or the "metaverse"? There have been Christian theologians who can be read as naturalistic pantheists. See Charles Hartshorne. Good luck ascribing classical concepts to him, for instance.
    - IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
- helveticaman 18y ago
  Or lazy. It's easier to understand creationism than physics.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
plugh 18y ago
That reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. I was sitting in my cube working. I shared a cube wall with the office secretary and she was chatting to another woman who had stopped by. It was typical girl-talk. I pretty much drowned it out until the woman said: I don't understand why all the really smart guys never believe in God... I burst out laughing. I don't know if they realized what I was laughing at.
- IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
  Oh my god, no lie, I just overheard almost exactly this conversation at my local Starbucks. "I don't know if God is testing me or something, but none of the smart nice guys I meet are even willing to hear the word of our Lord."
rkts 18y ago
Isaac Newton was highly religious and he was smarter than any Digg user. In fact, most smart people in Newton's time were religious. Atheism in those days was associated with poor uneducated people, the same way racism is today. Doesn't that disprove the hypothesis that intelligence causes people to be atheist? Wait, I know what you're going to say to that. You're going to say that Newton et al. don't count because they lived before Darwin. The theory of natural selection, you say, was the first non-religious explanation of life that smart people could believe. Before that, everyone just defaulted to religion because there was no better theory available. It's a nice idea, but I don't buy it. When I became an atheist as a teenager, I wasn't thinking about evolution; I didn't even have the foggiest understanding of Darwin's theories. I've encountered many other atheists who don't. Obviously, evolution is not usually what causes people to reject religion. I think the real difference is that, in Newton's time, it was fashionable for smart people to be religious, whereas in our time it's fashionable for smart people to be atheist. Evolution was just the fashion's tipping point. Specifically, Darwin caused a few very smart people to change their minds about religion, and the greater bulk of somewhat smart people (who desperately wanted to seem like very smart people) followed suit. Now anyone who wants to be considered smart will reject religion out of conformance. Basically, people will believe anything as long as their being wrong has no noticeable impact on their lives. Intelligence has little to do with it. And the moral of this story is not that you are all conformist sheep, but that it doesn't matter. If Isaac Newton struck out on the big questions, then you probably will too. Just stop trying to answer impossible questions, and go live your life.
- neilk 18y ago
  Atheism in those days was associated with poor uneducated people, the same way racism is today. Citation? Don't you mean paganism, rather than atheism? And by pagan I mean the jumble of indigenous beliefs that you get with a pre-literate people, freely mixing local superstitions and the official religion (in this case Christianity).
- sealedidentity 18y ago
  OK, as per your theory of conformism, smart people want to be accepted as smart by other smart people. That is why they are atheist in the current times. The fallacy of this argument is so transparent in that smart people are generally considered non-conformist. That is the essence of geekiness if one can put it that way. That there is god is for the theist to prove and not the atheist to disprove. What anyone who is rational chooses to believe is the sum total of his knowledge and his experience. You have lumped smart people as characterless by calling them conformist. So either you are a charlatan theist trying to get in a word sideways or someone who is truly and hopelessly wrong.

robg 18y ago

Or lazy. Coming late to this game, I'm still surprised by this attitude in CS circles. To me, an atheist has refused to see the problem in defining one simple term: "God". Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry. As a neuroscientist, I know that finite matter gives rise to visions of the infinite. To me, that itself is an awe-inspiring moment for which I have no rational basis. Call it what you will (even delusion) but the challenge is to explain it away when no explanation seems adequate. Of course, solving for "God" need not be tied to a particular faith. On it's own, it's a personal undertaking where rejecting an understanding in being atheist is certainly one's right. But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position.

dfranke 18y ago
All Sagan's books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man. An American student wrote to me that she had asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is religion!' But is 'religion' the right word? I don't think so. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory: Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal. Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'. --Dawkins
- robg 18y ago
  Pantheists do find God in a lump of coal. So too do coal miners and energy conglomerates. :) Aquinas called God "Pure substance through pure act". It's very hard not to see a definition of matter and energy there and given by a "Saint". Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?
  - dfranke 18y ago
    So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.
    - robg 18y ago
      And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? Dawkins is substituting one definition for all definitions. Problem is, his definition is neither necessary nor sufficient. Furthermore, the traditional problem with organized religion is the same: specific, and sometimes powerful, people failing to see that outcome with their own definitions. Sure, "God" could be whatever you want it to be. But that's exactly the point. It's a personal relationship (or lack thereof) defined by you. And no amount of science can take that away. If anything, the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) deepens my appreciation for the religious perspective.
      - 0x44 18y ago
        And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? That statement has no meaning. There is no fundamental understanding regarding the concept of "outside time and space", because our knowledge of them both derives from experience. To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however. Since, we can readily determine that the difference between believers and non-believers is a matter of experience. The difference between the two has nothing to do with "outside" either time and space, because that "outside" is not experiencable (at this point in time).
DougBTX 18y ago
Understanding "God" as a "Personal God" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god) is by no means limited to CS circles, I'd say it is the default position in much of the western world. Beyond that, yes, you're probably right: a broader definition of god would probably lead to less people calling themselves atheist. I'm not sure how you would go about expanding the definition, it seems like any religion which says "this is what god is" will have a natural advantage over one which says "god is whatever you like", since people are better at coming together over things which they share, rather than things they agree not to share.
- robg 18y ago
  But if anything, I'd expect programmers to be willing and interested in writing their own definition. The problem only comes in when one assumes that's the only definition. Still, programmers seem more, not less, amenable to re-write when something isn't right.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    Why bother with redefining someone else's term for your own use? It seems more straightforward to come up with your own term, if the concept doesn't match in the first place.
    - robg 18y ago
      That, I think, is a fine question. The emergence of "spirituality" is seemingly one approach to get around the term. For me, I'm okay with struggling with the term because it leads to good discussions with folks of differing persuasions.
    - DougBTX 18y ago
      Why bother with redefining someone else's term for your own use? If you think that someone stole your term, or at least your term's historical meaning, then it's fair enough to fight to take it back. You'll have problems communicating with people who don't remember the less-common meaning until you remind them of it, but that might be a price worth paying.
pg 18y ago
Or lazy. No, the lazy choice is to have the visions of the infinite you mention and instead of trying to understand them, simply to describe them in terms of whatever traditional concepts are floating around in your culture-- which in this case are at best 99% anthropomorphizing fable, and often consciously designed to enslave you.
- robg 18y ago
  That's a very strict definition that I mostly agree with to understand the past. But it still leaves the leading question unaddressed. The solution to rejecting something isn't replacing it with nothing. By "understand them", I think that can operate on many levels simultaneously. The key for me is either giving up traditional concepts or reinterpreting them in contemporary terms.
- jsrn 18y ago
  No, the lazy choice is to have the visions of the infinite you mention and instead of trying to understand them, simply to describe them in terms of whatever traditional concepts are floating around in your culture. maybe it's not an either-or choice. E.g., Don Knuth manages to be a (non-lazy) scientist who has thought a lot about infinity and a Christian at the same time.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Perhaps some of us have grown out of our traditional concepts designed to enslave us and have managed not to have visions of the infinite (study of infinities is a fairly mature science, btw) but still understand the need for a taxonomy of the unknowable? The lazy is on you, it seems, for making all kinds of straw man arguments here. Surely 99% of belief in God is based on culture and anthropology, but 99% is not 100%. You do the topic a disservice to say that it is. Personally? I find it funny when people say they're an atheist. "How do you know what not to believe in?" is my first question, and usually that shuts them down. You see, atheism is a response to those traditional cultural ideas of religion (and the history of how they have evolved), not to the real concept of a God. To the atheist, God, santa clause, the christian church, the easter bunny, etc -- it's all the same thing. Stuff you can't prove. They haven't grown to understand where the definitional fault lines are. That's lazy.
aswanson 18y ago
While I welcome the debate, I don't think this is the forum for it. All we will end up doing is insulting one another leaving opinions unchanged. It's been proven time and again that this type of stuff only results in flamewars. !HN
- maw 18y ago
  Only somebody with beliefs so different from my correct beliefs would say something so stupid.
  - aswanson 18y ago
    :)
as 18y ago
"As a neuroscientist, I know that finite matter gives rise to visions of the infinite." I'm pretty sure this doesn't mean anything.
- robg 18y ago
  "finite matter" = the ~3.5lbs of squishy grey stuff between your ears and all the material stuff that leaves an impression upon it "visions of the infintite" = can mean many things that approach that limit = Pi = recursion of indefinite length = time "before" matter = the number of possible synaptic connections ... What makes them interesting "visions" - to me - is our intellect can just about get our fingers those concepts and then...indeed, I know not the bounds of this inquiry And studying semantic memory in the brain, I have no idea where a concept like "infinity" comes from. Sure it might come from the brain? It must! Right? Right!? :)
  - as 18y ago
    I don't see a coherent argument here, which further suggests that it doesn't mean anything. Our having a concept of infinity has no metaphysical significance. All our definitions are phrased negatively, by what it's not: Infinite: That which has no limit. From the Latin 'infinitas', meaning 'unboundedness'. Try and see if you can define infinity by what it is rather than what it isn't.
    - robg 18y ago
      What, exactly, do you think I'm trying to argue? To me the question is exactly whether having a concept of infinity has metaphysical significance. I think no good answer is humanly possible. Your definition is just as tautological as anything offered in the positive. That's exactly the problem.
      - as 18y ago
        That's the problem, it's hard to tell what you're saying.
IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry. But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position. Well, obviously I believe in "nature" and "universe" and "matter". But praying to these things is silly, because they don't have minds and can't hear you. That's not what "God" means. What "God" means, to the majority of english speakers at least, is some form of magical super-fairy who created the universe and loves you. And no, I don't believe in magic or super-fairies, and I am not convinced that the universe's has a creator, and if it does, I'm further not convinced that said creator would necessarily be loving, or even have emotions as you and I conceive them. The slippery definition is a common tactic. You can't just redefine the term until it's something we all agree on, and then pretend that you're still talking about the same thing that we were disagreeing with. Either God is a magical ghost, or it's nature. If it's nature, then let's stop pretending that this is about deities and theism, and admit that we're just using poetic terms to talk about physics, declare that praying accomplishes no more than any other kind of meditative activity, and stop treating "religion" as any more special than sports or soap operas. I'd be ok with that.
- robg 18y ago
  Honestly it's not a "tactic" for me. I've come up with a workable definition that I'm very comfortable with. Luckily my wife and I mostly agree - and she's Indian. That's good enough for us - my definition doesn't have to work for you. And prayer, for me, is simply finding a stillness in my mind. You're insisting on a set of concepts that never worked for me. So I gave them up. It's still weird for me that this thread is filled with this common response, among folks very comfortable writing their own definitions on a daily basis, but this subject area provokes resistance but not reformation. By "Nature", where does that end for you? This planet? Or the solar system? The universe? Or the "metaverse"? There have been Christian theologians who can be read as naturalistic pantheists. See Charles Hartshorne. Good luck ascribing classical concepts to him, for instance.
  - IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
helveticaman 18y ago
Or lazy. It's easier to understand creationism than physics.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

plugh 18y ago

That reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. I was sitting in my cube working. I shared a cube wall with the office secretary and she was chatting to another woman who had stopped by. It was typical girl-talk. I pretty much drowned it out until the woman said: I don't understand why all the really smart guys never believe in God... I burst out laughing. I don't know if they realized what I was laughing at.

IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
Oh my god, no lie, I just overheard almost exactly this conversation at my local Starbucks. "I don't know if God is testing me or something, but none of the smart nice guys I meet are even willing to hear the word of our Lord."

rkts 18y ago

Isaac Newton was highly religious and he was smarter than any Digg user. In fact, most smart people in Newton's time were religious. Atheism in those days was associated with poor uneducated people, the same way racism is today. Doesn't that disprove the hypothesis that intelligence causes people to be atheist? Wait, I know what you're going to say to that. You're going to say that Newton et al. don't count because they lived before Darwin. The theory of natural selection, you say, was the first non-religious explanation of life that smart people could believe. Before that, everyone just defaulted to religion because there was no better theory available. It's a nice idea, but I don't buy it. When I became an atheist as a teenager, I wasn't thinking about evolution; I didn't even have the foggiest understanding of Darwin's theories. I've encountered many other atheists who don't. Obviously, evolution is not usually what causes people to reject religion. I think the real difference is that, in Newton's time, it was fashionable for smart people to be religious, whereas in our time it's fashionable for smart people to be atheist. Evolution was just the fashion's tipping point. Specifically, Darwin caused a few very smart people to change their minds about religion, and the greater bulk of somewhat smart people (who desperately wanted to seem like very smart people) followed suit. Now anyone who wants to be considered smart will reject religion out of conformance. Basically, people will believe anything as long as their being wrong has no noticeable impact on their lives. Intelligence has little to do with it. And the moral of this story is not that you are all conformist sheep, but that it doesn't matter. If Isaac Newton struck out on the big questions, then you probably will too. Just stop trying to answer impossible questions, and go live your life.

neilk 18y ago
Atheism in those days was associated with poor uneducated people, the same way racism is today. Citation? Don't you mean paganism, rather than atheism? And by pagan I mean the jumble of indigenous beliefs that you get with a pre-literate people, freely mixing local superstitions and the official religion (in this case Christianity).
sealedidentity 18y ago
OK, as per your theory of conformism, smart people want to be accepted as smart by other smart people. That is why they are atheist in the current times. The fallacy of this argument is so transparent in that smart people are generally considered non-conformist. That is the essence of geekiness if one can put it that way. That there is god is for the theist to prove and not the atheist to disprove. What anyone who is rational chooses to believe is the sum total of his knowledge and his experience. You have lumped smart people as characterless by calling them conformist. So either you are a charlatan theist trying to get in a word sideways or someone who is truly and hopelessly wrong.