One of the four horsemen, Daniel Dennet, proposed that those who perceive themselves as atheists should call themselves ‘brights’. This will distinguish them from the rest of the population who believe in supernatural activities.
In light of this, many atheists brought what they believed to be evidence that some of the smart people in the society should be atheist (smart, in this context, means physical science practitioners.)
In most instances, scientists who are atheists and do not believe in any divine being have no idea what religious people mean by God. They see God as a supplement worldly nature. To them, God is an item within the universe which they have found no scientific evidence. If this is the definition of God, then it means that everyone is an atheist, including Thomas Aquinas.
Religious people, when speaking about God, do not refer to something in the universe. They refer to the condition of the non-contingent ground of contingency. Such affairs are beyond the limits of the scientific method.
Many academic philosophers and theologists are not acquainted with the philosophy of religion. They prove to be very hard headed when it comes to the issue of God. They refuse the arguments brought forward about the existence of a God, but they do not have evidence to prove that there is no God.
The percentage of atheist in the professional philosophical field has more to do with academic politics than with convincing arguments. This is because if the chairman of a department if atheist, for example, it will largely influence the hiring and the firing of the staff in the department.
We can, therefore, conclude that atheists wrapping themselves in a mantel and referring to themselves as brights do not prove a point. The same applied in using statistics in proving a religious matter. It is much better to have arguments.