What makes atheists think their wiser than everyone else?

[sith123]

prompted by an earlier question.

[Zacs-Master]

Ooooh,handbags at dawn?

[Andyvon]

Well, I think I agree with Joko and NOX here as they have made the point a little more clearly than I did. Surely, a 'belief' is a conviction one way or the other and atheists hold convictions of their own views. I also take Birdie's point that the difference is an exercise in semantics. It is playing with words maybe - but isn't that what discussion is?

For the record I don't personally believe in a superior being so I couldn't argue with anyone who labels me an 'atheist'. I just feel that my holding a conviction that there is no supreme diety is little different to someone who has the conviction that God exists.

[birdie1971]

In the end, it doesn't particularly matter whether or not an atheist 'believes' in the non-existence of a supreme deity. What does matter though is the use of logic in arriving at that conclusion. To believe in a supreme deity that created the known universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our flora and fauna, and ultimately each and every human being and who is uniquely obsessed with our private thoughts and our public and private actions and who punishes or rewards us after we have died based on some arbitrary good/bad measuring system which differs wildly from religion to religion is truly an exercise in irrationality.

[FredPuli43]

An atheist believes that the available evidence disproves the theory that there is a god or gods.

Religions require us to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast" as the creation of one cleric happily described her expectation.

Miracles are by definition occurrences which cannot be explained by the laws of nature, science or medicine; otherwise they would not be miraculous. Yet every saint, each one hitherto a normal human, has been expected to be party to one. Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire drily remarks that the early church had men who had witnessed and performed miracles, faithfully reported as true by adherents, which they themselves had singularly failed to mention in their own writings. Such cynicism!

But miracles are but part. What solid evidence do we have, do the faithful have, for the existence of their favoured deities ? The faithful have none, as atheists see it. We are told that, if one child survives a tornado, when his siblings die in it, that that the prayers of his parents have been answered. Yet the almighty being who saved the life is the same one who did not save the lives of the others. What logic leads to that?

Religious texts, written on the authority of or conveying the words of the deity, are to be followed and every statement of anything which counters all known laws of nature is to be believed. And we are told, in some, of an afterlife, and of men who live hundreds of years, and much more besides. Yet no human has ever produced evidence which can support these assertions, any more than they can produce evidence of divine authority for not eating pork ( ignoring the common sense reason that it can be dangerous to do so)

That seems to be the difference between what an atheist believes and what the religious believe; a question of evidence to support each belief.

[joko]

yes venator - but atheists BELEIVE that there is nothing there.

everyone seems to be unable to accept the dual meaning of the word 'believe/belief' - it does not only apply to belief or disbelief in a faith.

its not a case of their being no god so therefore nothing to disbelieve -its that we believe god doesnt exist to be believed in.

believing in things can exist with or without god.

i understand the point people are making - but its pedantic, its splitting hairs and makes no difference either way - the end result is still the same.

[jomifl]

Nox, if you have a belief that I have a belief in the absence of god then you are indeed a 'believer' as according to your reasoning we are all believers and you certainly do have a belief that you know what my belief is.
As for being pedantic and patronising, you may as well add arrogant to the list of insults, it doesn't alter the truth, whatever that may be. As you said we all have the right to air our opinions and put forward our arguments but if you haven't got an argument and have to resort to insults then there is probably no justification for your contributions.

[NOX]

Jomifl, you seem to always conveniently forget that you are the one who starts the insults, or did you forget that you implied that I need a simplified explanation to be able to understand your lofty intellect? Several other Abers seem to be in accord with me on this, so perhaps it's you that aren't able to understand or maybe Joko and Andy are a bit dim too by your standard? Arrogant doesn't even begin to cover it quite frankly.

[doctordb]

Atheists are not wiser than everyone else but they do have a better 'understanding'.
I am an atheist. My opinion that there are no gods is not a belief, it is a known fact, the truth. How's that for arrogance?

let me explain; in my life i have not seen, heard, read, been told or experienced any event that would lead me to believe in gods. I have no need for gods. I have read the bible and and often catch up on some of the stories as there is a lot to be learnt from them but not one single word points me in the direction of a god.

atheists do not hold belief, they understand, they follow fact and truth.
Now over time many of the facts and known truths that i agree with will be proven right, many will be proven wrong. I can live with that.
That is the key difference between belief and understanding. An atheists point of view is one of progression, of wanting to learn new truths. science does this by constantly trying to prove itself wrong.
religion on the other hand believes it already knows the truth and it must not change or challenge itself, how's that for arrogance?

atheism is not 'wisdom' it is an 'understanding'.
so feel free to believe in any of the thousands of gods you choose, as I am free to try and understand the world through ever changing truth and fact.

[NOX]

I think the problem is Drdb (and thank you for the very courteous post, that's very much appreciated) that I believe in the sense that I am using the word that myself, Joko and Andy are using the word 'belief' in it's most literal sense as specified in the OED. In the context that we use it it has no reference whatsoever to faith or religious belief, so I actually think we are probably both correct depending upon the context the word 'belief' is used in.
Certainly I am not against anyone's opinions either way, I just have a huge problem with some people's transmission tactics;-)

[joko]

and here it is -

noun

1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: his belief in extraterrestrial life [with clause]: a belief that climate can be modified beneficially

something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion: we’re prepared to fight for our beliefs [mass noun]: contrary to popular belief existing safety regulations were adequate

a religious conviction: Christian beliefs [mass noun]: the medieval system of fervent religious belief

2 (belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something): a belief in democratic politics

Phrases

be of the belief that
hold the opinion that; think: I am firmly of the belief that we need to improve our product

beyond belief
astonishingly great, good, or bad; incredible: riches beyond belief

in the belief that
thinking or believing that: he took the property in the belief that he had consent

to the best of my belief
in my genuine opinion; as far as I know: to the best of my belief Francis never made a will



So theres the proof that belief/believe can be used in man different ways and does not only apply to a belief in god.

[jomifl]

Nox, just for the record the following quote by me:
'does it not?'
caused you to say
'What a dull life you must lead if you can seriously rationalize everything that's ever happened'
I am somewhat perplexed that from a 3 word question you can you deduce so much about my (dull) life. When I said you were talking cr@p, it was because unsurprisingly I know more about my life than you and I do know that by any measure you were talking crap.
If you read my posts on this thread you will not find any insults to you or anyone else. I have just posted up my point of view and my reasons for that point of view. If you have an intelligent point to make you are free so to do. You could start by explaining the reasoning that led you to deduce that I lead a dull life. At the very least it will amuse my friends.

[NOX]

...and I notice Jomifl that Joko's very sensible post has been entirely overlooked by you in favour of having another bash at me. Fair enough, whatever floats your boat.
''Nox, just for the record the following quote by me:
'does it not?'
caused you to say
'What a dull life you must lead if you can seriously rationalize everything that's ever happened''

THAT remark seriously upset you sufficiently to wade in with your ' talking cr@p' comment etc etc etc???
Really???
I actually thought it was a semi valid point that I made although the remark was clearly jocular, in that ANYONE, not just you, who puts such store on the power of logic that they try to reason everything scientifically, leads a jolly dull life.
If your time on earth ( cos you're not getting anymore anywhere else are you, lol) is so steeped in the need to logic everything then where is your fun? I mean forgive me if you really do go bungee jumping, to the opera, scuba diving and get up at 3.00am to write a piano concerto every now and then, but if you portray yourself as you do on here then you can hardly blame people for assuming your day to day personality is likely to be similar.
So, sorry if you're Captain excitement, I've clearly got it wrong.

[jomifl]

Nox, now you are getting closer, but I don't do bungee jumping. I find your tacit assumption that anyone who uses their powers of reason and logic necessarily leads a dull life to be just a bit naive. I think you have unquestioningly bought the studious 'nerd' stereotype, hook , line and sinker. I can assure you it just isn't true. I don't 'portray' myself, you make erroneous assumptons based on your prejudices.

[NOX]

I use my powers of reasoning and logic too, just like everyone else, I just don't feel or even 'believe' that it puts me apart from anyone else in terms of intellect, and I don't subscribe to stereotypes either about myself or other people.
We can only ever respond to people in a manner suitable to the way we have (logically) supposed them to be, and I supposed you to be clearly somewhat duller than you apparently are. For this I apologise profusely, but the evidence (not my prejudices) that I have of you did not suggest anything else (nothing to do with geekiness- I'm fairly geeky myself). Now you have informed me that you are in fact not dull, I've made a note of it, and will never consider you to be so ever again.

[jomifl]

Nox, thank you for that, shall we put the handbags away now? ;-)

[NOX]

Oh go on then...so long as we can get em back out another time though ...;-)

[jomifl]

Absolutely ;-)