Is theism worth refuting? This is a most interesting question; should we deal with it at all? Perhaps we should simply ignore it? It seems altogether possible (in this day and age) to live beyond the pestilence of theism [one can simply walk away]. And the fact that we can ask such questions; and the fact that such questions have relevance; and the fact that such questions must be asked (if one would not to waste one’s life) is only further evidence of the growing insignificance of theism; a kind of forced nullification (theism has been pacified)! Theism is in violent decay; a kind of absolute decadence (not a transfiguration but a mutilation from which it will not return).
We have rejected theism out of necessity. (This is very much like the skeptic who desires truth but realizes he cannot obtain it). In this sense skepticism is an organic conclusion. Theism cannot be defended, and as such, cannot be affirmed (in this sense Naturalism is an organic conclusion).
One might ask us how we explain the longevity and success of theism in previous ages. The answer here is simple: human nature longs for a thesis of certainty in the face of uncertainty; yearns for comfort in the face of death; for a sure word to stabilize a dark existence [from the time of birth everything is mystery]. That which succeeded in theism was not the ideals of theism (theology is void of power), but that which succeeded in theism was the Naturalism of theism*--- in that it formed communities--- in that it was (or at least appeared to be) a better alternative than barbarism (it was at one time relevantly pragmatic). Needless to say, we are beyond this point in human history; man does not need theism in order to advance... theism is the stone of the past it can do nothing but hold us down... and as the fluctuating waters of evolution swell it would cause us to drown. At this point in human history theism is barbarism; it is an example of the primitive!
We have nearly completed the stage wherein theism can simply be dismissed (this is to be expected in that the Naturalistic framework is nearly complete). Culture is no longer theocentric (or at least it is swiftly drifting away from theism). What is left is nothing more than a few enthusiastic jugglers who occupy the street; a few frivolous sheepherders, piddling preachers (those who know how to annoy us with the decibels of their empty speech)... needless to say, they will soon be swept away; the gutters are ripe with their decay.
What is the audience of the theist if not the theist himself? Their straw-men infatuations; their exotic emphasis; their theatrical-seriousness is easily incinerated, nullified by rational pragmatism [existence itself!]: men do not turn to God for healing they turn to science; even the best of their theologians affirms the authority of science... (need we say more?)--- above that of their own theism!
Make no mistake, be not discouraged; for the authority and power of this pragmatic, Naturalistic line will continue to grow, and the terror of the theist (his white ghostly face) is due to the fact that theism has no equivalent by way of power; the theist can say everything, but that is the trouble with theism--- there is nothing behind the passion of the claim!
*Most specifically stated: theism does indeed presuppose the supremacy of Naturalism, even as it speaks from the premise of Naturalism. Every supernatural claim in theism is first and foremost an argument for the supremacy of Naturalism. That which has authority is not theism but Naturalism; a thesis, which at every point in theism, is confirmed by theism. A conclusion in theism means the authority of the premise of Naturalism. And in our case this is not simply an empty assertion toward the appearance of power-- dramatic machinations. Naturalism, as it exists, as it is presupposed by theism, contains the actual ability of the thesis of power; it is the axiom of supernaturalism! This can easily be defended beyond the mark of mere assertion.