Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

I have stated several times that I am amazed at the number of atheists on this forum. I believe it is due in part to the fact that in order to be a good poker player you need to be mathematical, logical and analytical. I also believe those traits are more common among atheists than theists. Any thoughts? I would also like to see both sides rate themselves as poker players.

I am an atheist and consider myself a pretty good poker player (subjective of course). I have won over $80,000 the last 2 1/2 years in live games. Obviously there are great poker pros on both sides but I am interested in our forum members especially Notready, RJT and the rest.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

I would guess that atheists are better. Mainly because atheists are concerned with reality while theists are, well, not. Theists, by nature of their belief in a higher power, are probably much more likely to believe in silly superstitions and "luck." Of course I have no evidence whatsoever to back up anything I have said. Just kind of the way it would seem to be.

And yes, in case it wasn't obvious, I am an atheist.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

I think we need a larger sample size than that.

And for what it's worth, I'm an atheist, and I suck at poker ^_^

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

From what I gather, NotReady (he talked about his game once, I think) “got game”.

I am only learning the game. I started earlier this year. I hold my own. Not a winning player, yet. Although, I don’t have the time to spend that I wish I had (especially after finding this forum) For a novice, I’d say I am progressing fairly well. (Mostly because of 2+2 books and these forums.) My biggest problem right now is developing patience – to wait for the right hands. Since, I am playing at limits lower than my bankroll allows, I too often will make a call because it is a relatively minor amount for me.

The novelty of the game – that eagerness to get into the hand is wearing off also, so this will help my future game. Also, I am getting tired of not making a profit when I spend my time on it. Time is money, too, as they say. I have reached a new plateau and this is where I am now. Got the basics down, played enough hands that I no longer am playing just for the fun of it. Now on to the next step.

As far as atheist/theist – it certainly depends on the individual. I can see how one might lean towards atheist being a bit more objective. But, I wouldn’t discount the theist and his abilities to observe the intangibles (the table texture for example, or reads on folk in a live game) as a plus. I don’t think either group has a monopoly on things like the intangibles or logic.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don’t think either group has a monopoly on things like the intangibles or logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your input RJT. I agree with the intangibles being similar but I lean towards atheists being more logical.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

Atheists are just luckier.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

RJT - [ QUOTE ]
As far as atheist/theist – it certainly depends on the individual. I can see how one might lean towards atheist being a bit more objective. But, I wouldn’t discount the theist and his abilities to observe the intangibles (the table texture for example, or reads on folk in a live game) as a plus. I don’t think either group has a monopoly on things like the intangibles or logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raw initial talent - theist or not isn’t relevant. Essentially the observant, people-focused salesman have a head start. Analytical types usually bypass them later by better overall application but not always.

Doyle Brunson strikes me as an intelligent, observant people-reading competitor, but weaker on analytical skill than DS, for example. There are other personality factors that weigh in at the top level given reasonable skills in both those areas. Non-tilt is one. There are always players at every level that would be relatively awesome if they had a stabilizer bar. Similar with discipline in general. At the upper end of winners, I’d rate discipline in it’s various manifestations as a big factor.

Since there are many roads to atheism, I wouldn’t read too much into the impression we get from the 2+2 forum. It’s doesn’t give us ‘atheist players’ it gives us ‘atheist players that enjoy posting to an analytical web-forum" a self-selecting sample.

I suspect a correlation (not necessarily causation) but not convinced yet.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect a correlation (not necessarily causation) but not convinced yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

10-15% of the US population are non-believers. I suspect it is higher among the top pros and MUCH higher here on this forum. I think that is rather convincing.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

"I believe it is due in part to the fact that in order to be a good poker player you need to be mathematical, logical and analytical."

Probably only a few people remember that the start of all the religion debates occurred when someone put up a similar thesis, before this forum even existed, on the psychology forum and I replied something like:

"People who truly believe in the specifics of particular religions are much less likely to be good poker players given the importance of objective evidence evaluation that poker requires."

Nothing has changed in my mind.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

Phil Hellmuth once said he can "look into his opponent's eyes and see into his soul"

PH obviously believes in an immortal soul and presumably a God who created it.

PH is thus a theist. Since PH is one of the best poker players in the world, we can necessarily deduce that theists outperform atheists at the poker table.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Phil Hellmuth once said he can "look into his opponent's eyes and see into his soul"

PH obviously believes in an immortal soul and presumably a God who created it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know adamant atheists who make comments like that all the time. I have no idea how PH uses it but these boys mean "I understand him below his conscious level, I can read him at an emotional level." No theist implications at all. Not unlike when an atheist physicist talks about "god does not play dice", or "reading the mind of god"..it's just using the popular expression.

Even if PH is refering to some part of a person existing beyond this realm, there is no reason to think he means it's immortal or that it was created by a god ( although he well might).

If your interpretation is "obvious" from his useage... I'll have to start watching what I'm saying, g-damn it.

On a sidenote, I find it interesting how deductive thinkers believe an exception to an inductive 'majority of' conclusion disproves the conclusion. When I was younger, it would amaze me, now I essentially expect it. It's seems you are mocking the argument perhaps partly tongue-in-cheek but that still requires believing that others think this 'could be' a valid counter to the claim.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

The theist: Believes that <font color="red">God</font> is looking out for him, and his supposed long-shot will come through <font color="red">after death</font>.

The fish: Believes that <font color="red">Lady Luck</font> is looking out for him, and his supposed long-shot will come through <font color="red">on the river</font>.

Judge for yourself.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"People who truly believe in the specifics of particular religions are much less likely to be good poker players given the importance of objective evidence evaluation that poker requires."

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to me, to be pretty much the same as my statement that people with faith in God, the Bible, their pastor, ouija boards, etc, are much more apt to make irrational decisions. Yet, you seemed to have chided me by saying it's not about faith. "People who believe in the specifics of a religion..." sounds like faith to me.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Phil Hellmuth once said he can "look into his opponent's eyes and see into his soul"

PH obviously believes in an immortal soul and presumably a God who created it.

PH is thus a theist. Since PH is one of the best poker players in the world, we can necessarily deduce that theists outperform atheists at the poker table.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I didn't know you were a Christian, I'd think you were being sarcastic in this post. But, since you are a Christian... I'm not sure what to think. I guess this goes back to objectively weighing evidence like DS said...

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

Bocalbkr, Sklansky, and luckyme make the most sense, here. Creationists can ignore facts to better focus on what they are confortable with. That is a recipe for failing to improve past a certain level. Atheists are fortunate not to have this deficit. However, as luckyme said, if a Creationists has certain intangible skills like discipline and perception then his other deficits can be compensated for.

Similarly, tall people will always be better at basketball but if a short guy is incredibly quick.....Another example, since readers tend to be type B people who admire the romantic or exotic, type B romantics will always have an advantage in writing, but a type A person is likely to be more prolific and thorough.....

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

I concede that the point you make here is probably true. The implications of your statement, though, are either too facile (and therefore flawed) or too subtle (and therefore easily misunderstood).

It is the second of these possibilities which I would like to address. Another respondant to this post (KipBond) seems like a smart enough fellow, but his comment suggests a profound misunderstanding of the point you are trying to make. You ought to clarify these things, lest you unwittingly invite the unjust criticism of dumb believers and provoke the unjust vitriol of the dumb unbelievers.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

Poker ain't rocket science, not matter how much the WPT producers or book publishers hype it.

[ QUOTE ]
...amazed at the number of atheists on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they're mostly young white male internet junkies. Not too many believers among that group.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe it is due in part to the fact that in order to be a good poker player you need to be mathematical, logical and analytical. I also believe those traits are more common among atheists than theists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nonsense. To be a good poker player at all but the highest levels you need common sense and emotional control. If you have those two traits, a slightly above average intelligence is plenty of horsepower for poker. Hell, it's plenty of horsepower to write the book on poker.

I see no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that atheists are better players than theists. Using these forums as any kind of test is just selection bias and is poor science. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

To answer your question, I am an atheist and a winning player at small stakes (used to post as OOO before I got banned from OOT)

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

"This seems to me, to be pretty much the same as my statement that people with faith in God, the Bible, their pastor, ouija boards, etc, are much more apt to make irrational decisions. Yet, you seemed to have chided me by saying it's not about faith. "People who believe in the specifics of a religion..." sounds like faith to me."

No one has faith in ouija boards. Not by the definition I was using. And most people believe that their brand of religion makes a lot of sense. These are the people who tend to make worse poker players.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

"Nonsense. To be a good poker player at all but the highest levels you need common sense and emotional control. If you have those two traits, a slightly above average intelligence is plenty of horsepower for poker. Hell, it's plenty of horsepower to write the book on poker.

I see no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that atheists are better players than theists. Using these forums as any kind of test is just selection bias and is poor science."

Would you say the same for bridge or backgammon? And does the highest levels include 30-60? And I see plenty of evidence outside these forums.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"This seems to me, to be pretty much the same as my statement that people with faith in God, the Bible, their pastor, ouija boards, etc, are much more apt to make irrational decisions. Yet, you seemed to have chided me by saying it's not about faith. "People who believe in the specifics of a religion..." sounds like faith to me."

No one has faith in ouija boards. Not by the definition I was using. And most people believe that their brand of religion makes a lot of sense. These are the people who tend to make worse poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

People have faith in ouija boards, by the definition I was using: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." What definition of faith are you using?

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Phil Hellmuth once said he can "look into his opponent's eyes and see into his soul"

PH obviously believes in an immortal soul and presumably a God who created it.

PH is thus a theist. Since PH is one of the best poker players in the world, we can necessarily deduce that theists outperform atheists at the poker table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please reply, Bigdaddydvo, and let us know if this was a joke or sarcasm?

If its serious it must be one of the silliest attempts at logic I have ever seen. And possible adds weight to the theist=illogical angle?

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I believe it is due in part to the fact that in order to be a good poker player you need to be mathematical, logical and analytical."

Probably only a few people remember that the start of all the religion debates occurred when someone put up a similar thesis, before this forum even existed, on the psychology forum and I replied something like:

"People who truly believe in the specifics of particular religions are much less likely to be good poker players given the importance of objective evidence evaluation that poker requires."

Nothing has changed in my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad this subject has reemerged because I believe there is a significant factor being missed here. The reason there appear to be more athiests on this website and who play poker in general is the traditional social regard to gambling. Especially in the United States, gambling is seen in a very negative light among the religious. Poker is only now becoming more mainstream. Now that it is more widely accepted, more and more theists will emerge as top players, especially at the tournament level.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad this subject has reemerged because I believe there is a significant factor being missed here. The reason there appear to be more athiests on this website and who play poker in general is the traditional social regard to gambling. Especially in the United States, gambling is seen in a very negative light among the religious. Poker is only now becoming more mainstream. Now that it is more widely accepted, more and more theists will emerge as top players, especially at the tournament level.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting supposition - time will tell if it pans out.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now that it is more widely accepted, more and more theists will emerge as top players, especially at the tournament level.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not fair if you have an all-mighty infinite being helping to crack aces.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

"I'm glad this subject has reemerged because I believe there is a significant factor being missed here. The reason there appear to be more athiests on this website and who play poker in general is the traditional social regard to gambling. Especially in the United States, gambling is seen in a very negative light among the religious. Poker is only now becoming more mainstream. Now that it is more widely accepted, more and more theists will emerge as top players, especially at the tournament level.

Interesting supposition - time will tell if it pans out."

The hypothesis seems reasonable if it weren't for this:

The better the player, the less likely he is to be religious.

Assuming that is true, (and all my personal experience tells me it is), it makes my case regardles of the percentage of devout theists presently playing.

Of course this whole idea is simply a special case of a general concept. Theists are also much less likely to be great in Bridge, Backgammon, Logic puzzles, Chemistry, Physics, IQ tests, Probability, Analytic Geometry, Trading Options, Molecular Biology, or anything else requiring analytical thought. Don't tell me social mores are the blame all of that. Either religion makes you dumber (or at least less intellectually curious) or dumb people are more likely to become religious. Or a combination of both.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

Here, Here
\raises glass...

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

So are there any top-level pros who pray regularly at the table? I mean do you know of the religious beliefs of most of these guys and gals?

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

DS summerized -
[ QUOTE ]
"People who truly believe in the specifics of particular religions are much less likely to be good poker players given the importance of objective evidence evaluation that poker requires."

[/ QUOTE ]

DS has expressed it from a few angles, none of which are caught by this much more general statement of Txag007 -
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is only now becoming more mainstream. Now that it is more widely accepted, more and more theists will emerge as top players, especially at the tournament level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if 80% of top players of the future are theists ( the approximate american population ratio of theist - nontheist) that would have no bearing on DS's claim. It's a specific mindset about their faith that is an indicator of the style of thinking not helpful in shifting analytical strategy situations where everything is relative, poker, bridge, military strategy ( not so much tactics), theoretical physics, for instance.

General theistic beliefs based on a leap of faith doesn't automatically send out the warning signals. It's the dogmatic specific parts of the faith ( whatever it is) being defended as arrived at logically that is the 'tell'.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course this whole idea is simply a special case of a general concept. Theists are also much less likely to be great in Bridge, Backgammon, Logic puzzles, Chemistry, Physics, IQ tests, Probability, Analytic Geometry, Trading Options, Molecular Biology, or anything else requiring analytical thought. Don't tell me social mores are the blame all of that.

[/ QUOTE ]
We've been over this in other threads, David. This is your opinion. It is NOT fact, and yet you continue to regard it as such.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
General theistic beliefs based on a leap of faith doesn't automatically send out the warning signals. It's the dogmatic specific parts of the faith ( whatever it is) being defended as arrived at logically that is the 'tell'.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I find humorous is the numerous posts that claim Christianity is illogical, when the poster obviously knows little about the church. Sklansky is the worst.

SKLANSKY:
[ QUOTE ]
"People who truly believe in the specifics of particular religions are much less likely to be good poker players given the importance of objective evidence evaluation that poker requires."

[/ QUOTE ]
SKLANSKY:
[ QUOTE ]
I resort to those arguments a lot because I'm not knowledgeble about any religions specifics. When you claim that if I studied Christianity I would change my mind I can't prove you wrong because I'm not going to go to the trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I find humorous is the numerous posts that claim Christianity is illogical, when the poster obviously knows little about the church.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post isn't helping your cause. My statement certainly wasn't about xtianity and for sure not "the church" ( there is only one?) it's about using evidence of very poor skill at inductive logic in one subject ( theistic specifics, in this case, but it could be about moon-landings, or dog-breeding) and treating that as the basis for expecting poor abilities in that area of intelligence in another area. It's not guessing, or just somebodies opinion, logic is 'testable', it's not some secret methodology. Some people are good at inductive logic some people aren't, there is no social stigma attached. People good at inductive logic are often poor at some other areas of life that people also value. Everybody can't be good at everything or such a grade would have no meaning.

We just have to learn to deal with our weaknesses not deny them.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

It is probably true that dumb people are more likely to become religious than are smart people (even though this is not, as you assume, monocausal).

But it is also probably true that dumb people are more likely to become religious than they are to become atheists. And this contributes to the verity of your conjecture.

Should St. Peter begin proctoring IQ tests outside the gates of heaven, in order to maintain the intellectual respectability of the joint?

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

I think it was a jopke.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's seems you are mocking the argument perhaps partly tongue-in-cheek but that still requires believing that others think this 'could be' a valid counter to the claim.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pull your head out. He was just being silly.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He was just being silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the point of my "tongue in cheek" remark, allowing for that. But nagging at me was seeing in other threads the use of similar sounding "I found an exception to the general expectation, therefore the general expectation is wrong" examples, it's not unreasonable to be prepared for 'kidding-serious' or worse.

He caught DS's eye in the military thread with his "FYI I was standing next to a Brigidier General at Mass today."

Keep in mind that this line of 'rebuttal' is common in exchanges, and used as if it were valid, and just as silly as these comments, so there's no easy way to distinguish the serious from the semi-serious to the downright goofy. What was unusual about this one that was the clue it was "just being silly", we see tons of them essentially at the same level of sanity?

if it was a total joke, that's the risk one takes with net-humor. bin der dun dat.

luckyme, humourless in seattle

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

David,

I am not asking this as anecdotal evidence for or against the issue, I am just curious.

Is Dan Harrington atheist? For some reason, I don’t put him on being atheist.

RJT

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

I would like to point out that Doyel Brunson is a God fearing man, and I thought I read somewhere that Chip Reese became a Christian, sometime during the 80's, both men have seemed to have survived o.k., in this Godless poker universe.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I would like to point out that Doyel Brunson is a God fearing man, and I thought I read somewhere that Chip Reese became a Christian, sometime during the 80's, both men have seemed to have survived o.k., in this Godless poker universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

IronUnKind - HEEEEEELPPP !!

Before I respond to this post... am I being suckered again and this is somebody just being silly or is this the typical illogical rebuttal that I was referring to?

luckyme

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

"Of course this whole idea is simply a special case of a general concept. Theists are also much less likely to be great in Bridge, Backgammon, Logic puzzles, Chemistry, Physics, IQ tests, Probability, Analytic Geometry, Trading Options, Molecular Biology, or anything else requiring analytical thought. Don't tell me social mores are the blame all of that.

We've been over this in other threads, David. This is your opinion. It is NOT fact, and yet you continue to regard it as such."

I never said that I knew for a fact that this is true. But it isn't a matter of opinion and it would be testable. And I would gladly lay $100,000 to $25,000 against someone who didn't know for sure that I was wrong. Keep in mind that I am not including mildly religous people who might call themselves Methodist or Jewish, etc. I'm speaking about people who are quite sure the specifics of their religon is correct.

Meanwhile I'm wondering why you even bother to dispute me. The other religious people on the forum grant that I'm probably correct but say it doesn't matter. If you were sure I was right it wouldn't change anything in your mind, so why bother to dispute it.

Re: Are atheists better poker players than theists?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Of course this whole idea is simply a special case of a general concept. Theists are also much less likely to be great in Bridge, Backgammon, Logic puzzles, Chemistry, Physics, IQ tests, Probability, Analytic Geometry, Trading Options, Molecular Biology, or anything else requiring analytical thought. Don't tell me social mores are the blame all of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone else's reply and then

[ QUOTE ]

I never said that I knew for a fact that this is true. But it isn't a matter of opinion and it would be testable. And I would gladly lay $100,000 to $25,000 against someone who didn't know for sure that I was wrong. Keep in mind that I am not including mildly religous people who might call themselves Methodist or Jewish, etc. I'm speaking about people who are quite sure the specifics of their religon is correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm new to the debate and not particulary passionate about it. But I am interested and have some insight (I hope) into some of these matters.

I will point out that many religious people and humanists (who may be theists, atheists, or agnostics) believe, to some degree, that the purpose of human existence is to help others and develop interpersonal relationships. Most of the activities you listed, David, are not closely related to these goalas. Thus, they have less incentive to pursue these fields than someone whose attitude toward life is, to some degree, to maximize self-gratification. (I simplify here as most people fall somewhere in a spectrum here, wanting to help others without expecting full compensation in return and also pursuing their own self interests at other times.)

I happen to have some experience in academia and can describe my observations of some of the top mathematics departments in the country. These are the empirical observations that I have made:

* The percentage of mathematicians I have encountered who are atheists or agnostic is significantly higher than in the mainstream population. Obviously it would depend how you polled them, but I would say that probably half (perhaps a bit less) would answer affirmatively to the question, "Do you believe in the existence of a spiritual being that is responsible, in some form or fashion, for the existence of the universe?" Very few would accept the Genesis account literally.

* That said, I personally found little correlation between religious beliefs and mathematical aptitude. That is, I found that trying to predict the likelihood of someone's religious fervor based on their success in terms of peer-reviewed mathematical publications to be unreliable. In fairness, my knowledge of the religious beliefs of some were often incomplete or completely lacking (as it wasn't something I had a vested interest in determining) and often my knowledge of their mathematical reputation wasn't reliable. Thus, my observations are nowhere near definitive here, but they do suggest (albeit tenuously) that any correlation, if it exists, may not be as strong as is often asserted.
* Almost all of the mathematicians I have met have been very respectful toward the practice of different religions or no religion at all. There is little desire to impose religious customs on others (in contrast to large parts of the general population), but there is a willingness to accomodate needs for religious exemptions and to be respectful towards the religious beliefs of others (be they theistic or atheistic or indifferent).
Lastly, I am sure this point has been made oftentimes before, but most people who are skilled at logical analysis and yet still have beliefs in god are often quite aware that they lack evidence for their belief in god. They also tend to form beliefs for which there is not contrary evidence. (So they might believe that there is a spiritual being whose existence was necessary for the creation of the universe, but would reject the idea that the earth is only several thousand yeras old.) I see no reason why having a belief about a proposition for which there is no readily apparent (to me, at least) method of gathering evidence in favor or not in favor and acknowledging that it is just such a belief is any way in conflict with the ability to analyze data logically.

So I am not really sure what your point is, David. If it is simply that the mass of people, those who have little skills in logical analysis, are willing to accept dubious claims (such as the age of the earth being several thousand years), then I find what you are saying to be painfully obvious. Of course, such people can be duped in just about any matter and surely make for suckers in a poker game.

On the other hand, there are still religious claims that one can make which are construed in such a way that they cannot be analyzed through the collection of empiricial evidence. While one might question whether such statements have meaning or significance, it doesn't seem that believing that there is a meaning and significance and truth to them is paricularly relevant to one's ability to handle a completely different situation: logical analysis when there is sufficient data to draw conclusions.

Well this has gotten long and I didn't get a chance to address what is probably much more interesting: religious beliefs, such as the belief that Jesus Christ was resurrected, for which there is no direct evidence to suggest that such events did not or could not have taken place but for which there is inductive evidence that would refute the belief (in this case, the inductive knowledge that human beings cannot be resurrected from the dead).

I am too tired to fully explain my thoughts in this regard, but I will say that most intelligent religious believers are aware that beliefs in such propositions are not justified by recourse to evidence-based reasoning (and some even recognize that they would disbelief the relevant proposition if their belief were completely determined by evidential analysis). This is where the notion of faith comes in -- a willingness to believe a proposition for which there is insufficient evidence (or some would go so far as to say: for which there might even be evidence against, but it is not direct enough to be sufficiently conclusive). Thus, a Christian would believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected, even though he acknowledges that no other human being has been resurrected and there is no scientific basis which suggests that resurrection is possible. Hence, the need to have faith in certain theological propositions which are designed to explain how this is possible, given the preponderence of inductive evidence to suggest otherwise.

Now you can certainly argue as to whether choosing to have faith in such beliefs is sensible or not. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there are, in fact, many people who do hold such beliefs and yet are entirely capable of competently analyzing other situations (such as the play of a poker hand) in a completely evidence-based manner. Unlike poker or other similar activities, there is no concept equivalent to EV when it comes to assessing religious beliefs. That is, a person can assess different poker plays by calculating their relevant EVs and determining which one is maximal. Similarly, a scientist can assess different theories by making predictions and then conducting an experiment to determine which prediction is closest to the actual result. There is no such equivalent way to assess the truth value of many religious propositions. Consider the statement about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Given our inability to say much about what happened during the historical time in which he lived, we certainly don't yet have recourse to the field of history to refute the Christian's claim. The closest thing we have to assess the competing beliefs on the matter is their consistency. Unfortunately, the religious believer's belief is that the laws of nature / workings of the world are not consistent (and, in fact, have departed radically from their usual consistency a few times for divine purposes). This may or may not be a very sensible interpretation of the way the world has operated in the past, but there's no way to gather evidence for or against it. You can make good philosophical arguments for choosing not to believe in statements that are, in some sense, constructed so as not to be falsifiable. But that is a very far cry from saying that someone who does accept at least one such statement is not capable of logically analyzing statements that are falsifiable.

Well, I'm tired...hope my arguments and claims are clear, though I am afraid they probably are not nearly as clear and concise as they ought to be.