Deism vs. Atheism. Which is more likely true?

[William]

Assuming for argument sake that it is possible for the universe to exist without intelligent design...

In what way is atheism still a better position to assume? In what way is atheism more likely to be truer than Deism?

One of the most popular arguments I ever come across for atheism over any type of theism usually goes along the lines of "if I were god, I would want to interact with my creation rather than stay absent like the Deistic god, and since there is no evidence of GOD existing through interaction, atheism is still the preferred position to have, because the deist GOD is absent anyway, so might as well not exist."

So, in what way is atheism more likely truer than Deism?

Or, are the two positions so similar that they are not even in conflict with each other and may as well be the same thing?

After all, a deist idea of GOD in relation to this universe, might as well not exist. Which is precisely the atheist position on the subject of GOD.

Thoughts?

[Tcg]

Deist belief in a creator is a conclusion drawn from observation.

It isn't an observation of the creator given that no such observation is possible.

The dogma lurking in atheism----though not necessarily every atheist falls into it----is an unfounded insistance that no creator is needed. Unless you demonstrate that the universe necessitates its own existence, you haven't justified such an assumption.

Nope. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods. No dogma involved.


Tcg

Then I take it you reject the dogmatic assertion that no creator is needed.

Certainly, you realize that I am not atheism. Or perhaps not...

If you're an atheist, then you reject all the dogmatic assertions that atheism rejects----right?

Nope. It means one thing... wait for it... I lack belief in god/gods.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

Deist belief in a creator is a conclusion drawn from observation.

It isn't an observation of the creator given that no such observation is possible.

The dogma lurking in atheism----though not necessarily every atheist falls into it----is an unfounded insistance that no creator is needed. Unless you demonstrate that the universe necessitates its own existence, you haven't justified such an assumption.

Nope. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods. No dogma involved.


Tcg

Then I take it you reject the dogmatic assertion that no creator is needed.

Certainly, you realize that I am not atheism. Or perhaps not...

If you're an atheist, then you reject all the dogmatic assertions that atheism rejects----right?

Nope. It means one thing... wait for it... I lack belief in god/gods.

Then you concede that your earlier statement.....

Deism is based on the dogmatic belief in a "creator" even though there is no need for one.

.....carries no weight?

[Tcg]

Deist belief in a creator is a conclusion drawn from observation.

It isn't an observation of the creator given that no such observation is possible.

The dogma lurking in atheism----though not necessarily every atheist falls into it----is an unfounded insistance that no creator is needed. Unless you demonstrate that the universe necessitates its own existence, you haven't justified such an assumption.

Nope. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods. No dogma involved.


Tcg

Then I take it you reject the dogmatic assertion that no creator is needed.

Certainly, you realize that I am not atheism. Or perhaps not...

If you're an atheist, then you reject all the dogmatic assertions that atheism rejects----right?

Nope. It means one thing... wait for it... I lack belief in god/gods.

Then you concede that your earlier statement.....

Deism is based on the dogmatic belief in a "creator" even though there is no need for one.

.....carries no weight?

Of course not. Let me explain more fully. That is my opinion, an accurate one at that, and not a component of atheism.

An atheist = one dude or chick.

Atheism = All dudes and chicks who lack belief in god/gods.

It's like how some bowlers think Fords are the bestest trucks. That doesn't make that opinion an aspect of being a bowler.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Tcg in post #53

That is my opinion, an accurate one at that, and not a component of atheism.

It seems you can't admit that something is your opinion without insisting that your opinion is "accurate".

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #38

if any Deist believes in an involved or aware Deity then they've just left Deism

Wrong. The core tenet of Deism is not that the creator is uninvolved. The core tenet of Deism is that the creator can be discerned by each individual through nature and reason without the aid of special revelation through any individual or group. That's it.

You're falling for a mischaracterization of Deism often employed by the uninformed.

No....
Where did you dig all that up from?
Deism is 'everything, force and anything is together, the whole, but a whole so vast that it's quite unaware of this planet, solar system, or even this universe.'
You can quote me if you like.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #38

if any Deist believes in an involved or aware Deity then they've just left Deism

Wrong. The core tenet of Deism is not that the creator is uninvolved. The core tenet of Deism is that the creator can be discerned by each individual through nature and reason without the aid of special revelation through any individual or group. That's it.

You're falling for a mischaracterization of Deism often employed by the uninformed.

No....
Where did you dig all that up from?
Deism is 'everything, force and anything is together, the whole, but a whole so vast that it's quite unaware of this planet, solar system, or even this universe.'
You can quote me if you like.

I didn't "dig" it up; I looked it up. Here it is again, in case you missed it in post #27:

https://www.deism.com/post/deism-defined-article-1

[Miles]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #38

if any Deist believes in an involved or aware Deity then they've just left Deism

Wrong. The core tenet of Deism is not that the creator is uninvolved. The core tenet of Deism is that the creator can be discerned by each individual through nature and reason without the aid of special revelation through any individual or group. That's it.

You're falling for a mischaracterization of Deism often employed by the uninformed.

No....
Where did you dig all that up from?
Deism is 'everything, force and anything is together, the whole, but a whole so vast that it's quite unaware of this planet, solar system, or even this universe.'
You can quote me if you like.

I didn't "dig" it up; I looked it up. Here it is again, in case you missed it in post #27:

https://www.deism.com/post/deism-defined-article-1

I'd be careful of my sources.
Looking up your linked source, this relatively recent religious upstart, formally called The World Union of Deists, and founded in Charlottesville, Virginia on April 10, 1993, by Robert Johnson, appears to be a Scientology wanna be that redefines terms to fit its rather odd "theology'." Making an internet splash in 2021 this somewhat poorly written website tells us that,

"Deism Is . . .

Knowledge of God based on
the application of our reason on
the designs/laws found
throughout Nature and the
beautiful Universe. The designs
presuppose a Designer. Deism is
therefore a natural religion /
spiritual philosophy and is not a
"revealed" religion.

Compare this to the common definition of the term.

de·ism
/ˈdēˌizəm,ˈdāˌizəm/
noun: deism
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

--Emphases mine--

.

[oldbadger]

I didn't "dig" it up; I looked it up. Here it is again, in case you missed it in post #27:

https://www.deism.com/post/deism-defined-article-1
[/quote]

Thank you for showing that.
I didn't have to read through that waffle for long........
I read from it:-
Is Deism a form of atheism? No. Atheism teaches that there is no God. Deism teaches there is a God. Deism rejects the "revelations" of the "revealed" religions but does not reject God.

Atheism is all about 'There is no aware/involved/interested God.'
A person who disbelieves in any God at all would be an Adeist.

Since Deism is all about 'Everything, force and anything else is all part of the Deity, but a Deity quite unaware of us' and 'Nature is the resident Supervisor'. This means that since we don't believe in an involved God we are by definition 'A-Theist' Not-Theistic. The best thing that Deists can do is to avoid any groups which try to tell us what we are. Just look up 'Theist' in a dictionary, is my suggestion.

Individual Investigation before Institutional Indoctrination, I think.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #38

if any Deist believes in an involved or aware Deity then they've just left Deism

Wrong. The core tenet of Deism is not that the creator is uninvolved. The core tenet of Deism is that the creator can be discerned by each individual through nature and reason without the aid of special revelation through any individual or group. That's it.

You're falling for a mischaracterization of Deism often employed by the uninformed.

No....
Where did you dig all that up from?
Deism is 'everything, force and anything is together, the whole, but a whole so vast that it's quite unaware of this planet, solar system, or even this universe.'
You can quote me if you like.

I didn't "dig" it up; I looked it up. Here it is again, in case you missed it in post #27:

https://www.deism.com/post/deism-defined-article-1

I'd be careful of my sources.
Looking up your linked source, this relatively recent religious upstart, formally called The World Union of Deists, and founded in Charlottesville, Virginia on April 10, 1993, by Robert Johnson, appears to be a Scientology wanna be that redefines terms to fit its rather odd "theology'." Making an internet splash in 2021 this somewhat poorly written website tells us that,

"Deism Is . . .

Knowledge of God based on
the application of our reason on
the designs/laws found
throughout Nature and the
beautiful Universe. The designs
presuppose a Designer. Deism is
therefore a natural religion /
spiritual philosophy and is not a
"revealed" religion.

Compare this to the common definition of the term.

de·ism
/ˈdēˌizəm,ˈdāˌizəm/
noun: deism
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

You should be less interested in the "common" definition and more interested in a correct definition, which isn't so cut-and-dried.

https://www.neodeism.com/2017/01/12/neo ... different/

Isn't there a rule on this forum to the effect that if someone self-identifes as being of a certain creed, that self-identification is to be accepted?

[oldbadger]

https://www.neodeism.com/2017/01/12/neo ... different/

Isn't there a rule on this forum to the effect that if someone self-identifes as being of a certain creed, that self-identification is to be accepted?

Now I get it!
So you are a NeoDeist? I acknowledge your self-identification Athetotheist.

But I am a Deist, and the wonderful thing about Deism is that it's simple wholeness could be written on the back of a shopping receipt.
To want to found a Deism club (I accept that you are a NeoDeist ok?) is a bit like founding a club for humans.

Trying to perceive or show that the whole of everything (the Diety, Athetotheist) created all, causes me to imagine an atom in a cell in one of your kidneys feeling certain that you created yourself. Of course, you didn't, and we don't have a clue as to how the whole of everything came to be.

Deism is just the simple acceptance that everything, force and anything else altogether is the whole, and we are a part of that. And Mother Nature is the guv'nor around here. So I guess the best that we can do is to respect Nature.