God is an issue of where we apply our faith.
A thousand years ago, and today, a mother with an ill child might pray, an expression and practice of faith. She would pray to God, if monotheist, or a God, if pantheist, or perhaps to the spirits.
Today, besides that, she might make a call to 911 and the miracle of modern medicine. So, we see the imbuement of faith to non-spiritual means. Maybe it could be called Technos.
People have faith in their habits, normally regularity, and maybe their horse at the track. Many espouse spirituality as faith, and religion as a large, well established part of community and avenue of spiritual expression and commonality.
Many, probably most, still have some faith in a higher power.
It is impossible to disprove a higher power. Strict monotheists can still assign everything to an omniscient, omnipotent God. It doesn't matter what ever things are ever scientifically explained that were previously assigned to miracle.
I don't know if he was particularly extropian, or if Westerns are particularly extropian, but Louis L'Amour wrote a book _The Lonesome Gods_ which has some themes of faith transitions, otherwise generally a decent story.
Infinity is a mathematical expression, as well as a slightly different expression with spiritual aspects. The limit of 1/d, as d goes to infinity, is zero.
To each his or her own.
> > No, "god" can't be compared to a relatively neutral
> > meme like "infinity"; it is firmly (and IMHO duly)
> > linked to things like ignorance, irrationality and
> > oppression. It's a meme that carries a lot of (often
> > unpleasant) historical baggage. That's why atheists
> > get upset when you use it.
> The concept of God has appeared over and over again, with many different
> interpretations. What makes the atheists different, is that instead of
> redefining the concept of God, they get disagreeable.
> If your god is rationality, popular opinion, money, drugs, or sports. Just
> say so. But don't fool yourself into thinking that we are without our petty