I make that point quite often. Nothing is higher in the mind of the atheist than his own supposed "intelligence" and his presumed powers of "reason."
The atheist must by logical extension be his own creator and his own designer. Strangely, in-spite of all his "brilliance" he can't present a cogent rationale for having chosen the design of himself that he did, he can't remember how he did it, and he can't repeat it in a scientific laboratory using every scientific method his self-exaltedness ever developed.
"We're still working on it...," or so they say. But if you've already created yourself, and you are allegedly at the pinnacle of your penultimate evolutionary design to date, what's still to work on?
What informed your choices, and what informed whatever it was that informed its choice to inform you? If nothing but yourself informed you about how to design yourself you must be the repose of all knowledge about yourself. Just tell us how you've designed it all so far and we'll all just stand in awe of you.
Atheism has nothing philosophically in common with conservatism. The roots of each are founded in diametrically opposing world-views.
FReegards!
Some Atheists, such as Dawkins, believe that science can answer all questions, which is termed scientism. This includes questions dealing with the purpose of life, the meaning of life, the origin and purpose of morality, etc. Science was never intended to answer these questions. It is simply a method to observe natural phenomenon. Science has very clear limitations. It has never been designed to answer philosophical or theological questions. Dawkins believes that science killed belief in God if only people were rational and intelligent enough to believe in science. Science cannot kill belief in God any more than science can kill belief in right and wrong. When science and scientist stay within the limits of natural science, it is of great benefit; however, when it tries to prove or disprove metaphysical realities, it does great harm.