Why do many atheists think that people who believe in God are stupid and irrational?

Question

I'm exasperated because it seems that many atheists who answer questions on this site express their aversion to "religious" people in terms of "rationality." In other words, the only explanation that's offered for believing in "GOD" (as we understand God) is a lack of intellectual faculties and/or a refusal to examine the "facts" which would lead a truly "rational" person to conclude that there is no God.

I've also noticed that atheists often attack religious people for believing they are "absolutely right," but isn't someone who states categorically that "There is no such thing as God" just as . . . well . . . adamant that their world view is absolutely true?

Answer 1

My college intro to sociology class was taught by a priest. On the first day, I remember being filled with a wave of disgust because I would have to have a PRIEST teach me something about the world. I was young and dumb.

It turned out to be one of the best courses I ever took, and it wasn't long before the teacher and I actually admired and respected each other, even though we disagreed about religion.

In the 20 or so years since, I've come to learn that the vast majority of people you meet in life will disagree with you in some areas, maybe even very important ones. It could be politics, religion, relationships, whatever.

The point is, you don't have to agree with someones beliefs to respect them, as long as they are open-minded enough to embrace a "live and let live" philosophy. It really doesn't matter what they choose to believe. It's only when people try to force their beliefs on others (like most people here try to do) that the problems start. Some of my best friends have totally opposite beliefs from me. Who cares. If we can't agree on one thing, we focus on the things we do have in common.

The truth is, none of us, theists and atheists alike, know for certain what is what, and we may or may not get the answer when we die.

Darkness_to_Light
Belief in god is hardly a "natural" process. It's a social effect, commonly IMPOSED on people who dwell in communities in order to maintain order via exploitation of peoples ignorance and fear of the unknown.

Studies of feral children, the best example we have of humans who've been totally isolated from social influences, show that they have no knowledge, or innate desire of a god concept. The only "natural" needs a person has are the same as any animal - air, water, food and a suitably temperate environment (or shelter from the elements.) Everything else is optional.

Answer 2

AMEN!

I can't understand why so many people who bring accusations against Christianity do so in such ignorance. However, I do believe there are two reasons for this.

1) Some "Christians" are content with not searching through difficult doctrines. This is very real and is not hard to find. It doesn't take long on here to see someone claim to be a Christian and probably never opened a Bible before. Along with that they probably never searched deeper philosophies to be able to debate with non-believers about such matters.

2) The accusers, having never touched a Bible, believe what other people say about alleged "contradictions". They do not take time to try and understand any biblical concepts. Rather, the gist of their arguements lie in what appears to be a loud accusation. The problem is there is nothing underneath any arguement. If there was you would see verses(IN CONTEXT) in their accusations.

Since I committed some time to this I would like to demonstrate a problem with those investing their time in science.

A small lesson in astronomy.

When a star explodes it becomes a supernova or commonly known as a black hole. This black hole although emitting an astronomically small amount of light, hawking light, sucks most of the light around it. Stars are generally pretty small objects when compared to the universe. If there was an explosion that would result in such a huge space of our Cosmo we would have no light. This is because the gravity and intensity of this explosion would take everything.

Even modern day science has its flaws who knew!

Answer 3

I think that is a fair question. Let me try to give a fair answer.

You'd probably consider me to be atheist. I consider myself to be agnostic, in the sense that I believe you cannot prove the existence of a "god" (i.e a supernatural creator of the universe), and I know you can't prove its nonexistence (because you can't prove a negative). As such, I try to withhold judgement on that question, and keep an open mind.

However, I think that even IF there is a god, the God-of-the-Bible has more to do with superstition and myth than anything to do with the "real god". This is why I think you'd probably classify me as an atheist, since it seems to me that when most christians today say "atheist" they mean "non-bible-believer".

I know some deeply religious people who I like and admire. However, it seems that the kinds of religious people that I can respect and admire are just a tiny minority of the religious people in United States. Perhaps there are more of them than I am aware, but if so they seem to be afraid to speak up. Instead the religious and sociopolitical discourse in America is now dominated by fundamentalist christians.

Someone else commented earlier that we atheists think that christians are gullible. Again, the religious people I admire are not gullible. But I think a huge number of christians were very gullible when they fell for the propaganda of the George Bush campaigns. George Bush is not the kind of religious person I can respect, let alone admire. I don't think he comes anywhere near to the worthy precept of "love your neighbor as thy self".

I think there are quite a few "believers" in the U.S. who have behaved very stupidly and irrationally the last decade. They have let their beliefs support a corrupt, war-mongering political party and president, and as far as I can tell, they've done it because of their greed for power, and their intolerance of people like myself who do not share their religious beliefs.

Answer 4

In my experience, there are two types of Christians.

1) There are the type that follow a religion because it makes them feel better about death. They would be utterly hopeless in this life if they didn't think that there was something that "happened" after they died.

2) There are the types that will utterly ignore everything that they are presented with, any contradictions, and will confuse themselves with half-assed logic because THEIR RELIGION CANNOT BE WRONG! They will not entertain any other notion.

The former group I can respect, as everyone is afraid of dying. I don't think it is stupid to try to make yourself feel better. The latter group is the group that I find to be stupid and irrational, and they are quite literally frightening (this group is the one that was burning people at the stake 400 yrs ago).

Answer 5

There are some subtleties at work here that seem to be escaping the notice of most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.

A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.

For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."

See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."

But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filter of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any attack on one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and attack on their subjective reality.

And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person, it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding. However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode... for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down. And, ultimately, it will.

So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies and misrepresentations that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They are just blithely bopping along, doing what science does... figuring out how nature works.

No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded, intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a certainty that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.

We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.

When the religious enter a forum like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking new information which might allow them to QUESTION their beliefs more effectively, or might put their beliefs at risk... they are seeking VALIDATION... of their beliefs, and hence, their self-description.

Answer 6

It is the contrary. Belief in the God is a natural process. If you read the documented proof of the Aborgines of Australia and Kapaku tribe in Papua New Guinea you will read that those tribes were aliented from the rest of the World. When they were discovered it was observed that they too believe in One God, they further believed that God has no Image, nor shape or size. They further believed that God can't have son, he is not subject to aging and no one has seen God.

I believe that their description of God is far fr better than many many educated people who have made God something like a Human.

Finally it is the Atheist who are irrational and not the believers in God.

Answer 7

Many theists are arrogant and ignorant in their assumptions about dogma. They have no rational basis for their belief. They have contributed essentially less for this universe than any particular culture ever known. Notice how these people like to live off of other people's achievements. If it were up to them we would be in the Stone Age.

Answer 8

I agree.

I think that atheists and believers are just two versions of the same kind of person - the kind of person who wants to believe strongly in something. One believes strongly there is God and the other believes strongly that there is not.

To me, a rational person would be unable to decide whether there is or is not a God because the evidence is not persuasive for either view.

Answer 9

I think the issue is fundamentalism - we have secular/atheistic fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists. Both are rigidly attached to their concepts and look not to engage in dialog but, instead, to perpetuate the fundamental problem of separateness between people. Both religion and science can lead to the real God and they both can lead away. When we don't think we can be taught anything we're rigid -- and I mean the lessons that come not from teaching specifics or beliefs but those that come from the openness of dialog. I see atheists on here who are exactly the same as their christian fundamentalist counterparts: both retreating to the ridgidity of their own thought system (considered to be 'truth') and looking to win the argument.

Answer 10

I don't think all theists are stupid and irrational...I've met quite a few who are able to think rationally. No offense to either side...but yahoo doesn't attract a lot the brightest crayons of either the theistic or atheistic variety. I think a lot of the turmoil here is created by stupid teenagers (no offense to the smart teenagers who are acting nicely) who have nothing better to do.