Why do atheists so frequently characterize those who beleive in God as ignorant or "unenlightened"?

Question

Albert Einstein was devout believer in a higher power. Sir I saac Newton is still considered one of the best scientific minds in history, and he believed in God as well. Does this put them among the ranks of the unenlightened as well? They both were revolutionary in conveying a greater understanding of the world to mankind. Just curious why atheists see themselves as intellectual superiors to believers..

Answer 1

No Einstein was not, Newton was sure but what choice did anyone have back then? Being burnt at the stake, life under house arrest? Of course they were believers it was that or death for 1800 years or so. After Galileo suggested the earth went around the sun, not even suggesting anything to do with god, do you really think anyone was going to stand up and say "I'm an atheist?

Answer 2

So far, the first three answerers didn't even answer the question.

My best guess as to why atheists do such is quite simply because they think they're right. So of course if someone believes other than them, they'll think they're unenlightened or ignorant. Some just go a step further and express it in derogatory terms. Theists, of course, think the same of atheists and also express it often. So this is not just an atheist thing anyway. Just look in the bible, "For the fool hath said in his heart there is no God"

But I guess it's just the atheists' biggest weapon, since they have scientists and scientific theories in their corner (which all pertain to studies of the physical world and therefore can't be a cut-and-dry answer to a non-physical being if it existed). But having all these people in your corner makes the brass between the legs shine a little brighter. The top scientists are considered by some to be the enlightened few. So if you disagree with these scientists, of course you'll be characterized as ignorant.

Now, atheists in general don't just indiscriminately yell out, "ignorant! ignorant! ignorant!" to anything wearing a cross. They, of all people, should know that's called an Ad Hominem and in philosophical discourse, you've lost the fight if you have to resort to such tactics. There are just certain people (on both sides of the issue) that are, quite plainly, too arrogant, angry and/or ignorant themselves to argue any other way.

But, of course, that's just MY opinion, and I'm usually full of crap ANYWAY.

Answer 3

Einstein did not believe in a personal god.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

Newton lived in an extremely primitive age and also believed in alchemy.

Answer 4

I've been on this board for a while, and the Newtons are few and far between. On all sides. That is because Einsteins and Newtons are very rare, no matter what their beliefs. Historically, people have tended to believe in gods so it would follow that a lot of past famous scientists would believe in god(s). This is the appeal to false authority fallacy.

Additionally, you are not entirely honest in your representation of Einstein's beliefs or lack thereof, and by your wording I think you know this. If you have to lie or misrepresent the truth to justify your position, how strong is your position?

Answer 5

Albert Einstein did not believe in any kind of personal god. Sir Isaac Newton, for all you know, might have been an atheist, but he wasn't about to admit it because he would have been executed for saying so, in a particularly cruel and gruesome way.

Now we have the freedom to say it without being roasted or carved up or both, 99% of top scientists are atheists. That should tell you something.

Answer 6

See...I can usually classify the Christians into two groups, the Faithful who are ALSO open-minded (rare but there ARE some...) and then the would-be Faithful who are close-minded (usually Fundies...as well as a majority of the Christians) So THAT is why I at least characterize a vast majority of Christians as the "unenlightened" and ignorant...because they can't accept others beliefs...

Answer 7

This is not true for all who believe, but a large number of believers have a strong aversion to any knowledge that threatens their already fragile faith.

There is no more fragile a faith than the one that needs defending. If Newton didn't claim to be a believer he would have been ostracized and possibly beaten. Einstein was not a theist and did not believe in a personal god.

Answer 8

In a recent study of scientific knowledge compared to religious beliefs the Jews scored the highest. Second place was Liberal Christians with Atheist coming in third. Conservative Christians were close behind.

Answer 9

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a child like one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. [Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949

Perhaps some atheist see themselves as intellectually superiors because they do not take their history and sciences from one book ie the bible.

Answer 10

that is neither. in case you probably did only a sprint examining you could understand that atheists do no longer hate god in any respect. The observe "Atheist" skill, "devoid of perception in God." that is it. that is all. no longer the rest. It would not mean lack of expertise of god because of the fact there is no info what so ever to help the assumption of god. devoid of any info in any respect to make an assertion, how is it that one may well be ignorant? a million. lacking expertise or expertise extra often than no longer; uneducated or unsophisticated. 2. lacking expertise, information, or expertise approximately something in specific: "blind to." while there is no information in any respect to help a place how can considered certainly one of likelihood be blind to that place. while all the info lines up against the region, how can somebody who knows the info against the region be considered as ignorant? by way of the way, we've already had 500 years of Church rule. We noted as that factor era the "dark an prolonged time." Scientists have been killed, all non-believers persecuted, witches have been burned, and heretics butchered whilst the holy Church won their properties and wealth. that is something you desire to return to? nicely... there's a faith in the worldwide that still kills any non-believers or anybody that blasphemes against the only real God. have you ever considered Islam? you could locate which you and your dogmatic emotional needs extra wholesome with Islam extremely amazing. BTW... there is no separation of Church and State in the form. this may well be a smoke reveal screen. there's a separation of State from Church. there is no separation in any respect of Church from state. The pastor in the final church I went to freely talked of politics and advised his congregation how they must be balloting. Church agencies make up a number of the main important lobbies in Washington. And do you think of for a 2nd that a individual who became non religious in in the present day's way of existence must be elected to a notably seen public place of work? faith has its palms throughout government. Did the religious no longer get the words "In God We believe" on the Secular distant places funds of america. optimistically we can opposite that some day. What extremely needs to ensue is church homes ought to start stealing from human beings, document their earning and pay taxes. they must be dealt with like the agencies they are and be held in charge for their earning. The state needs to have extra impact over chruches.