I would say that Atheists, while many of them tend to see themselves as supremely rational and smarter than all others-(when discussing the topic of God), are not necessarily so rational and are by no means, "smarter than all others-(when discussing the topic of God)".
The major problem with Atheism and Atheists, is that their entire argument is premised on the erroneous presupposition that there is no evidence for God's existence, which therefore proves that God does not exist. This is the classic Argument from ignorance; "the absence of evidence is therefore, the evidence of absence"; there is no evidence for God, therefore God does not exist.
My critique of Atheism and Atheists is that they are essentially, not much different than the ambitious Theist. Strangely enough, both ambitious Theists and ambitious Atheists, tend to be on mission to prove either the existence or non-existence of God. However, in the case of the Atheist, he or she tends to obsessively (and even mindlessly) nitpick, as well as critique the Theist (or even the Deist or even the Agnostic), though not provide us with an empirically or epistemologically convincing alternative that has a fraction of originality. Their argumentative style, while often combative and rancorous, largely consists of citing the errors made by their opponents. Saying or asserting that you have no proof of God's existence, therefore God does not exist, is a fundamentally weak and juvenile sounding argument. Such an argument, is really not much better than the ambitious Theist who says, you have no proof of the non-existence of God, therefore God exists. As I have said in previous postings, the system of proof and DISPROOF historically and contemporarily, is ONLY confined to PHYSICALLY ROOTED topics and NOT beyond. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a Grand Being that is BY DEFINITION, "beyond the physical". The Laws of logic and physical reality are inapplicable to this topic and therefore the question of God's existence or non-existence, continues to remain, an unknowable and a mystery.
There is an interesting term called, "Agnosto-Atheism", which agrees with the ideas of Agnosticism, though leans towards a DISBELIEF in God's existence-(and NOT an argument that is erroneously based on knowledgeability). There are also Agnosto-Deists-(which I personally leans towards) and even Agnosto-Theists, who, unlike the Deist or Agnosto-Deist, allows for a BELIEF in the Supernatural and the miraculous-(though still recognizes the questionability of some of those beliefs). Yet, Gnosto-Atheism or an ability, to somehow, provide an original and convincing argument for the non-existence of God-(and not primarily rely on anti-Theistic critiques), is an impossibility.
Atheism and Atheists, tend to be more reflexive in their language, though missionary in their style. There are rational and intellectually sophisticated elements to the Atheistic argument and not believing in a Grand Spiritual Being is by no means irrational. However, the notion that a Gnosto-Atheist-(rather audaciously), can make a plausibly convincing and original sounding case for the non-existence of God solely based on a logical system that has no application to something that is by definition, "not physical", is beyond ambitious...it is downright irrational.