Why do SOME atheists think atheists are more intelligent, logical, sophisticated than theists?

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

I'd say all atheists think this but it's a bit of a stretch because you do have atheists who don't make these claims. But for the most part this seems to be what atheists believe to be true. Given that atheists don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence then logically it would follow they only would believe something if there is evidence. So what evidence is there for this actually being true?

 

[JohnB445]

It's a pride thing. Atheists mostly parrot whatever they hear about science without going into depth about it. They have a misguided view when it comes to Christianity from what I see.

an atheist should know that evolution is also something that takes faith to believe in.

The appearance of Humans in this world is still a mystery to science.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I think generally, everybody thinks their own group is smarter than everyone else or are in on some knowledge others are yet to figure out for themselves. I don't believe theism is a sign of less intelligence or atheism a sign of more intelligence. Some of the most brilliant minds in history believed in God(s).

 

[holo]

Believing in evolution is more like believing that the moon is a tiny planet orbiting the Earth. None of us have actually been there, but pretty smart people have concluded that that's what the moon is, and it fits nicely with what we know so far about gravity etc. So yes, it's technically a matter of faith, but there's a lot of evidence that it is in fact so. In short, it's reasonable.

It's not like Christianity is the only, or even the most, logical thing to believe in. For one, I don't really see more evidence for Christianity than for, say, Hinduism. Sure, if I really dig into both religions and compare every aspect of them, I may conclude that one is more likely true than the other, but none of them has any real evidence as far as I can tell. Also, if we were supposed to conclude that Christianity is true by analyzing it historically, logically, philosophically, scientifically etc, that would seem to go against what the religion itself is proclaiming about faith. I think most Christians would agree that real faith is something supernatural, not the end result of scientific study. If it were, then only very smart and knowledgeable people would believe.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I'd say all atheists think this but it's a bit of a stretch because you do have atheists who don't make these claims. But for the most part this seems to be what atheists believe to be true. Given that atheists don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence then logically it would follow they only would believe something if there is evidence. So what evidence is there for this actually being true?

The Relationship Of Common Sense Realism To Dispensationalism’s Hermeneutics and A Priori Faith Commitments

Quote
The Influence of Common Sense Realism on Early Dispensationalism
It is important to note that despite its overwhelming acceptance, many American Christians were unaware of Common Sense Realism as an actual philosophical system. Writes Noll, “For much of the history of the United States, evangelicals denied that they had a philosophy. They were merely pursuing common sense.”7 Diogenes Allen adds that the resulting effect of this catechesis of Common Sense Realism was, “a static view of Christian doctrine and morals with no sense of historic [one might add, philosophic] development.”8 In fact, as dispensationalism was first being articulated, it seems to have simply assumed as unquestioned fact many of the tenets of Common Sense Realism. After all, one wasn’t necessarily doing philosophy by simply using common sense, was he? Thus, when one encounters hermeneutics texts by early dispensationalist authors (and other Enlightenment theologians, as well), very little space, if any, is given in defense of the philosophical foundations of the interpretative methodological approach being offered. It seems that more often than not, dispensationalists were either unaware of or had simply ignored the role of philosophical presuppositions in their hermeneutical methodology. Bernard Ramm points out this characteristic ineptness towards philosophy in Lewis Sperry Chafer’s theology, in particular. “In reading Chafer’s theology, it is apparent that he is not at home at all in philosophy. He makes rare references to philosophers, and in most cases Chafer is citing some other source and not the philosopher directly.”9

 

[Wordkeeper]

Believing in evolution is more like believing that the moon is a tiny planet orbiting the Earth. None of us have actually been there, but pretty smart people have concluded that that's what the moon is, and it fits nicely with what we know so far about gravity etc. So yes, it's technically a matter of faith, but there's a lot of evidence that it is in fact so. In short, it's reasonable.

It's not like Christianity is the only, or even the most, logical thing to believe in. For one, I don't really see more evidence for Christianity than for, say, Hinduism. Sure, if I really dig into both religions and compare every aspect of them, I may conclude that one is more likely true than the other, but none of them has any real evidence as far as I can tell. Also, if we were supposed to conclude that Christianity is true by analyzing it historically, logically, philosophically, scientifically etc, that would seem to go against what the religion itself is proclaiming about faith. I think most Christians would agree that real faith is something supernatural, not the end result of scientific study. If it were, then only very smart and knowledgeable people would believe.

Rationalists will not accept any theory unless it is repeatable, AKA follows the scientific method, or more recently, is falsifiable. They won't even accept Psychology as a valid scientific discipline, because its foundation is that we are the results of childhood influences, a very tenuous claim.

Strangely, a few fellow rationalists are beginning to suspect that falsifiability isn't really the true litmus test for validity any more.

 

[Sabertooth]

Theists believe in both the natural and the supernatural, especially if the supernatural is reasonably well-documented, as in the Bible.

A. As Christians, we are devoted, first, to honoring God's desires (as we best understand them).
B. If the Bible and Holy Spirit are silent on a particular topic, we then try to make the best decisions that we can based on our understanding of the natural world/universe.

Atheists, on the other hand, do not acknowledge (our) plan A and go straight to plan B. And they may even know plan B better than we do, because we only turn to it when plan A doesn't work.

Consider this:
God gave the Jews hand-washing in the Mosaic law. [Plan A]
The rest of us didn't even think about that until Semmelweis (1846), Pasteur (1862) and Lister (1869) when germs were discovered. [Plan B]

During the bubonic plague (1346-1353), relatively few Jews died in that epidemic. It is now believed that it was because of their hand-washing. (Nobody knew about germs at that time.) Plan A was clearly superior to plan B.

Atheists refuse to acknowledge the supernatural. When they see us acting on plan A, they automatically assume that we are acting WITHOUT reason, rather than on an UNSEEN reason. From that perspective, they presume that they are superior in their cosmology.

Plan A requires obedience or, at least, heedfulness.
Plan B requires knowledge & logic.

It is inconceivable to them that there could be a rationale that transcends natural causation and logic.

"For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence." 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 NKJV

And I am not anti-intelligence. (I am a semi-retired, 2E technical analyst.) There are just some things that natural intelligence cannot do.

 

[Serving Zion]

I'd say all atheists think this but it's a bit of a stretch because you do have atheists who don't make these claims. But for the most part this seems to be what atheists believe to be true. Given that atheists don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence then logically it would follow they only would believe something if there is evidence. So what evidence is there for this actually being true?

It's a bit of the contentiousness, but also there is a bit of a pattern of absurdity and intellectual dishonesty in Christianity that probably is the first thing they find objectionable and that puts the negative spirit in them to begin with (consider 2 Peter 2:2 - the destructive heresies were bringing the way of truth into "disrepute").

This comes about because of the Christians who believe what others explain to them without ever questioning it enough to understand it. For instance, it is common enough to hear the teacher say "don't worry if you don't understand it, just accept it on faith and it will make sense later". As soon as someone does that, they have chosen to stop trying to understand, and they have chosen to believe a thing that they don't understand. Then, whenever they need to defend that belief, they have to argue for a doctrine that they really don't understand! .. and the antagonist can see right through their hypocrisy, that they are making things up on the spot. Then because they themselves have not been able to admit to the unbeliever that they don't really know why they believe what they believe, they have begun walking in the darkness (secretly lying to themselves and to the atheist, so that they don't have to admit their hypocrisy). They are, as 1 Timothy 4:2 puts it, "having a conscience branded as with a hot iron" - (the "hot iron" being a rock of truth in the merciless hands of one who has no fear of God and therefore nothing to lose by asking the tough questions).

.. but yeah, as for the atheist, once they get that negative spirit in them, and they are unable to discern the spirit of truth to know whether a person is of the light or the dark, they only see that all Christians have these beliefs, and they've discovered that the beliefs just don't stack up.. so even when they run into a solid believer, they already have the spirit of error that prevents them from hearing what we say (1 John 4:6).

 

[Freodin]

Consider this:
God gave the Jews hand-washing in the Mosaic law. [Plan A]
The rest of us didn't even think about that until Semmelweis (1846), Pasteur (1862) and Lister (1869) when germs were discovered. [Plan B]

During the bubonic plague (1346-1353), relatively few Jews died in that epidemic. It is now believed that it was because of their hand-washing. (Nobody knew about germs at that time.) Plan A was clearly superior to plan B.

That is a very interesting way to argue the superiority of theistic thinking.

The Great Plague killed, estimated, about 25 million people. A third of Europe's population overall, regionally a lot more.

The vast majority of these people were Christians. Who believed in God, not germs. And died, pleading to God to spare them.

 

[Sabertooth]

And died, pleading to God to spare them.

...and still went to Heaven, if saved. Jesus made it clear that hand-washing was not a requirement for Salvation. But the faithful Jewish observance turned out to be beneficial on this side of Eternity, without having to discover germs, first (the scientific method).

I believe that this might well prove to be the case of other health/diet/hygiene codes in the Mosaic Law.

Also, the Jews were massacred by their jealous neighbors, so their relative health benefits were short-lived.

 

[Freodin]

...and still went to Heaven, if saved. Jesus made it clear that hand-washing was not a requirement for Salvation. But the faithful Jewish observance turned out to be beneficial on this side of Eternity, without having to discover germs, first (the scientific method).

I believe that this might well prove to be the case of other health/diet/hygiene codes in the Mosaic Law.

Also, the Jews were massacred by their jealous neighbors, so their relative health benefits were short-lived.

That sounds like confirmation bias to me.

Would you agree that it is better, more reasonable and a sign of "intelligence" and "logical sophistication" when you do something because you understand the reason for doing it, than to mindlessly follow simplistic rules?

 

[Sabertooth]

That sounds like confirmation bias to me.

I expect that it does.

Would you agree that it is better, more reasonable and a sign of "intelligence" and "logical sophistication" when you do something because you understand the reason for doing it, than to mindlessly follow simplistic rules?

If the source was anyone less than God, or the rule was unclear. When it is God, He frequently makes His rationale clear[er?] as I move forward.

I was first exposed to trigonometry in junior high school. In those lessons, we used a printed table for sines, cosines & tangents, which we took on faith. I found out later that that table was generated by calculus, which I never learned.

Does that mean that I didn't really learn trigonometry, since I cannot generate its tables from scratch?

(Being autodidactic, I make frequent use of "black box" analysis in both the natural AND the supernatural.)

 

[expos4ever]

an atheist should know that evolution is also something that takes faith to believe in.

False equivalency. While it is perhaps technically true that belief in evolution requires some faith, it is the same kind of faith one needs to believe that smoking causes cancer - the evidence supports both beliefs to a very high degree.

The appearance of Humans in this world is still a mystery to science.

The origin of life itself is a mystery, but the evolution of humans from lower forms is not.

 

[Freodin]

I expect that it does.

Now if you take something on faith, and assume that it "might well be" that all from the same list is just as trustworthy, while ignoring all the "unclear" or even "wrong" stuff... well, yes, than this would be confirmation bias.

But that is the problem of faith... you cannot analyse it.

If the source was anyone less than God, or the rule was unclear. When it is God, He frequently makes His rationale clear[er?] as I move forward.

That the source of any of these rules is "God" is at least dubious. And it is definitly not clear. Even in Judaism, the cleaning of hands is a ritualistic cleaning, not a hygienic one. That it does have - some - hygienic advantages can be purely coincidental.

I was first exposed to trigonometry in junior high school. In those lessons, we used a printed table for sines, cosines & tangents, which we took on faith. I found out later that that table was generated by calculus, which I never learned.

But this table wasn't provided by God. It is the result of this same "atheistic" secular logic and sophisticated intellect that is denied here.

Does that mean that I didn't really learn trigonometry, since I cannot generate its tables from scratch?

Yes, it does. You didn't learn trigonometry - you learned algorithmic calculation. Following a rule. Not understanding it.

When I learned basic geometry, we learned a way to construct parallel lines. I managed to come up with a way that was a lot quicker than the method we had learned. I knew that my method would have the same end result, because I had understood what each method did, and how it worked. I didn't follow the rule... I followed the system behind it. Because I understood.

(Being autodidactic, I make frequent use of "black box" analysis in both the natural AND the supernatural.)

It works very well, in many regards. Exept when it doesn't. The relevant expression is: "Garbage in - Garbage out". And following rules cannot get rid of the input garbage. Only understanding can.

 

[Sabertooth]

But this table wasn't provided by God. It is the result of this same "atheistic" secular logic and sophisticated intellect that is denied here.

You really missed the point on that one.

 

[Freodin]

You really missed the point on that one.

Then explain it to me.

 

[MehGuy]

Honestly, in the past the average IQ of an atheist was probably higher than the average IQ of a theist. These days.. I'm not so sure.. lol.

 

[JohnC2]

Believing they are smarter goes back to the Greek Philosophers.. It was said that the Politicians believe in everything. The people believe in their individual gods.. But the philosophers believe in none of them....

Ironically - the big rediscovery of Greek literature and philosophers during “The Enlightenment” fueled the current Rationalism and it’s rejection of God. It’s nothing new.

But - because The Ancient Greek Philosophers were “Smart” - folks made a point of studying them and following their ideas. And a predictable consequence was that they decided the best idea was to reject God because they wanted to seem smart like those philosophers...

Never mind that those philosophers never made any bones about their philosophies being useful in practice out there in the dirt and muck of real life... The ones who did died trying to convince everybody else that “You are doing it wrong... It will work if you do it right.....”

And that’s pretty funny when you think about it....

 

[expos4ever]

Rationalists will not accept any theory unless it is repeatable, AKA follows the scientific method, or more recently, is falsifiable.

1. I doubt that rationalists reject a theory that is not repeatabke, where did you get this idea.
2. The scientific method, as far as I know, does not demand repeatability; however it does insist on falsifiability (a different concept).

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

@Freodin Do you believe atheists are more intelligent, logical and sophisticated than theists? If so why?