Deism vs. Atheism
May 21, 2010 at 5:30 pm
(This post was last modified: May 21, 2010 at 5:32 pm by Atheist_named_Christian.)
Hi Everyone,
I post this under philosophy, as Deism is definitely not a religion but also claims to be not atheism (I doubt this).
What I wanted to know from you Atheists - or better Deists, if some are here - what do you see as the major difference between atheism and deism?
To me, it seems, that deism is merely the more "harmonic" or "optimistic" version of atheism. Deists just claim that the unknown parts of the universe (before the big bang) are "god" and otherwise have a fully rationalist/naturalist approach to reality.
Deism is surely something I consider "good" - especially when compared to any religion - but I see at least 2 major logical fallacies:
1. Deists claim simply not to know, what will happen after death. This is contradicted by biology/neurology that clearly shows our mind being a product of brain activity. The latter will surely cease after death and therefore there's no life after death.
2. If I call the circumstances that led to the emergence of our universe "god" or "chance" or whatever else does not matter at all. As soon as we will be able to understand this process, it will be merely nature and "god" is pushed back one step further. So Deism needs god just to fill gaps? This seems like solely re-naming something we don't have knowledge of.
I already looked at deism.com, but they don't answer these questions either. (It's even worse: After reading the "outstanding article" about "Atheism's Weakness" I really couldn't see, how the author considers himself a "free thinker" - the arguments are simply horrible and full of logical flaws.)
I post this under philosophy, as Deism is definitely not a religion but also claims to be not atheism (I doubt this).
What I wanted to know from you Atheists - or better Deists, if some are here - what do you see as the major difference between atheism and deism?
To me, it seems, that deism is merely the more "harmonic" or "optimistic" version of atheism. Deists just claim that the unknown parts of the universe (before the big bang) are "god" and otherwise have a fully rationalist/naturalist approach to reality.
Deism is surely something I consider "good" - especially when compared to any religion - but I see at least 2 major logical fallacies:
1. Deists claim simply not to know, what will happen after death. This is contradicted by biology/neurology that clearly shows our mind being a product of brain activity. The latter will surely cease after death and therefore there's no life after death.
2. If I call the circumstances that led to the emergence of our universe "god" or "chance" or whatever else does not matter at all. As soon as we will be able to understand this process, it will be merely nature and "god" is pushed back one step further. So Deism needs god just to fill gaps? This seems like solely re-naming something we don't have knowledge of.
I already looked at deism.com, but they don't answer these questions either. (It's even worse: After reading the "outstanding article" about "Atheism's Weakness" I really couldn't see, how the author considers himself a "free thinker" - the arguments are simply horrible and full of logical flaws.)
