Your perception of theists

[paulpablo]

When you learn that a particular person is a theist, does that fact alone make you think any less of them? Perhaps less intelligent, or less rational, or less educated, or less good, etc?

If so, how and why?

Thanks!

I voted other because I'm not sure how much a person has to believe in a god in order to be a theist.  If being a theist basically means you don't believe in any doctrine and you're not sure about a god but if you had to choose you believe in one then that doesn't seem irrational to me.

If a person for no reason at all believes in god or believes because the bible or the quran says so then I would view that person as being less rational than myself.

[Catholic_Lady]

I doubt many atheists would say nothing would ever change their mind! But maybe some would. I don't have much respect for the intellectual integrity of someone who states they would never change their mind, given appropriate evidence, about any subject.

Unfortunately, a lot of theists do play this card. I've barely heard any atheists doing so.

I can't say I've ever heard an Atheist say those words exactly, but someone did tell me that they don't need to "investigate" anything to be sure God isn't real, just as we don't need to investigate anything to be sure that unicorns aren't real.

[Whateverist]

Has anyone mentioned the way theists smell? I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to mention.

[Iroscato]

I voted yes, though it's not a strong yes.
Try as I might, I must admit I'm as human as the rest of us, and I do have a slight bias towards theists in regards to their overall intelligence. However; it should be noted 'intelligence' is an extremely complex, multi-faceted concept, and is therefore notoriously difficult to quantify. Overall I do try not to think of someone as less intelligent simply for their religious beliefs, it's just religion is, in my mind, such a drain on humanity I ocassionally condemn by association.

[Catholic_Lady]

Has anyone mentioned the way theists smell?  I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to mention.

We smell wonderful....

[Minimalist]

I doubt many atheists would say nothing would ever change their mind! But maybe some would. I don't have much respect for the intellectual integrity of someone who states they would never change their mind, given appropriate evidence, about any subject.

Unfortunately, a lot of theists do play this card. I've barely heard any atheists doing so.

I can't say I've ever heard an Atheist say those words exactly, but someone did tell me that they don't need to "investigate" anything to be sure God isn't real, just as we don't need to investigate anything to be sure that unicorns aren't real.

Whereas we have heard the lunatic fringe of fundies say that very thing.



Note Bill Nye's take on the matter.

[Whateverist]

Has anyone mentioned the way theists smell?  I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to mention.

We smell wonderful....

I guess it is possible to get used to it.

[Catholic_Lady]

We smell wonderful....

I guess it is possible to get used to it.

[robvalue]

Well, we literally can't investigate it, usually. That's because the claim is defined in such a way that there is nothing we can learn about it. God is usually carefully defined in order to be science proof, so... if it exists, it's science proof. It can't be investigated.

If you have a sensible definition of what God is meant to be that would make it possible to investigate it, I'd be very interested! I've literally never heard one. All I've ever heard is unfalsifiable claims (claims that can't be proved wrong). For example:

I'm told to pray. If the prayer is "answered", that is proof of God. If the prayer is not answered, then God either said no, or I must wait. Either way, God exists. This is no test at all, just reaffirming an assumption, because there is no failure criteria.

I get told to use methods other than science. But there are no other methods; science is what demonstrably and repeatedly works. By definition, any method worth a damn is science. All "other methods" result in thousands of people all getting different conclusions, all with no way to demonstrate any of them are anything beyond imaginary.

[downbeatplumb]

Okay, let me rephrase it.

If you conduct an investigation, you're in control of how it's done right? Maybe not outside factors that you can't control (depending on the investigation), or whatever it is you're investigating in and of itself, but how you conduct the investigation, that is what you're in control of.

The result of the investigation is going to be influenced by 1. whether you do the investigation in the first place and 2. how you go about it. So in some ways, you're right, if you do the investigation correctly, you'll presumably come to the right conclusion, but you are in control of getting there in the first place.

With reference to what people believe in god, I think it's absurd to say that they have no control over what they believe. That's like saying someone has no control over the outcome of any particular experiment. That's demonstrably not true. People are in control of what they investigate, this in turn has some impact on the result, which is to say, what they believe at the end of the investigation.

If a person tells me they do not believe in God and nothing could ever change their mind, even though they never investigated, I will take their word for it. I will believe that they just don't think God is real, and that nothing can change that, and it just is what it is. Are you saying then that these people are being dishonest?