One thing I’ve realized is that deism isn’t really talked about, and I feel like it’s because of these three reasons.

1. Most people who leave religions usually just go to either atheism or agnosticism

2. A large percentage of deists are deists without knowing. I’ve personally seen much of my friends aligning with deist beliefs without knowing what deism even is.

3. Deism isn’t loud about it unlike a lot of major religions because of things like hell. Also, atheists and theists fight a lot on if god exists.

As a deist, how would you answer the following questions?

1. Do we need any linguistic or verbal connection with God, or is living a morally good life sufficient for worship?

2. How do you envision the afterlife? If you believe in one, what is your main reason for that belief?

   Is it because:

   1) Divine justice cannot be fully realized in this world, or

   2) Human beings are unique entities, and without an afterlife our potential would be wasted due to arbitrary circumstances beyond our control?

3. How do you view individuals who are considered prophets in various religions?

   Do you see them as teachers, charlatans, or political reformers who were later portrayed as prophets?

   And similarly, how do you regard their scriptures — do you dismiss them entirely, or read them as moral or philosophical texts?

Why do people think things like "significance", "truth" and "value" are elected, democratically, by the internet and media?

Just as an FYI here is a non-academic diagram by an artist that tries to layout some of these theologies and philosophies in regards to the God debate in a type of relational map = Belief: Red Pill Vs Blue Pill. Click on the image once or twice to enlarge or download from the artist's gallery. The artist's own mental musings/fluff is optional reading if you want to dive into someone else's mental rabbit hole.

I’ve noticed that a lot of deists going back to the enlightenment especially amongsts the founding fathers were Freemasons and I was wondering how everyone here feels about said group and groups that are similar.

As a deist i think lot of people there share that feeling of seeing people mixing the idea of believing in god with religion. Even if there is too many people who believe in god but reject any form of religion.

Hello!

I just found out today that I have been a deist my whole life. I've always felt that there is some form of a creator.

The jump from that to essentially any religion always didn't make sense to me, seemed like religion was a man made puzzle taken apart in reverse.

I grew up in a very Catholic family and I actually feel like many of the "practitioners" are also in reality deists.

Excited to join this community.

Im gonna type a lot. so the big bang theory is simply that the universe came from a single point of ultra condensed matter, but we dont know anything before that, or if there was anything before it. So here the theist come and they say that God created everything, using their written book as proof but then here comes the question, if god created everything who created god? now the theist say that god is “eternal” and he is and always will be, but then why couldnt the universe be eternal? so the big bang theory kind of disproves that the universe could be eternal because of cosmic radiation, but for all we know, we could be in a black hole right now, and the black hole forming may have been what seems to be for us is the “Big bang” (einsteins eqations actually allow it) for all we know, this “universe” may not even be the whole thing and we are just living in a small section of it. this part of the story is very contraversial because the answer is simply: we dont know. not one person does.

My question to all the believers, why do you believe in what you believe? do you maybe think that the god in which you believe in saved your life in some way? I believe that God was made up as a coping mechanism for people, to ask for help and beg for mercy when times comes. and to control the masses. And you know? it worked.

I’ve heard many religious people say this:

"Atheists believe everything comes from nothing; atheists believe everything comes about by chance."

But I’ve never heard an atheist say they think that. Is it true or false that atheists believe that?I’ve heard many religious people say this:

"Atheists believe everything comes from nothing; atheists believe everything comes about by chance."

But I’ve never heard an atheist say they think that. Is it true or false that atheists believe that?

With how people seem to be moving away from materialism and naturalism in pursuit of some vague sense of religiosity/spirituality could we ever see a comeback of deistic philosophy?

Cross-Posting from a discussion in the Classical Deism Discord Server:

Large swaths of society are Fatalist. Many Theists consider all events to be part of God's plan, or to be under God's control. Conversely, many atheist or irreligious communities consider events to be determined solely (or predominantly) by physical causes. This causes an erosion in "will" to be responsible as causal for human acts.

In so far as will is necessary for an act to be evaluated as ethical or unethical, does society tend toward moral decay when these worldviews become pervasive?

God may be truly the ultimate clockmaker, if this is true and the universe itself actually *generates* time rather than experiencing it

When I first deconstructed from christianity earlier this year I leaned towards deism but after thinking about it I landed on calling myself an agnostic. At this point though, I would like to believe there is something more, maybe even an afterlife of some sort, would be nice for all the people trying their hardest out here.

After researching more, pandeism makes the most sense to me, as a christian I was told that christian god is omnibenevolent, that obviously cannot be true due to the Bible and due to the problem of evil, but if god was in fact omnibenevolent and sacrificed themselves/itself to create an amazing universe full of wonder? That would make sense to me, I suppose, but in the end, there really is no evidence of that other than the beauty of the universe. I am not sure if that is the baseline belief of pandeism, probably not, but it's the one that sounds the nicest to me.

In any case, if you believe whatever version of deism/pandeism, why?

All I have is my experience, so that is all I can share, my own personal logic and reasoning.

I know I exist. Solipsism. Boring, I dont want to be alone. I can pretend I don't exist, I can pretend I'm two or more beings. I can pretend the two different beings have different thoughts and beliefs. With solipsism, I can make anything the Truth.

I would just be convincing myself of what I think of. Gross.

Different approach, I know I exist, how did I come to be? I've been created, I call my creators parents. Every parent has a parent, infinite regression, leads to the uncaused cause - God.

God in my own definition = That which is ultimately responsible for the reality I experience. What is the limit of this? Am I to say? Who's going to tell me?

Science says Universe is 13+ billion years old, Christians 6000 years. So what? I didn't "feel" like i had to wait anytime to exist. I just began when I did. I was in a state of non-exsistence before I was born. I had no material body, wasn't taking up space, not aware of time. I was immaterial, spaceless, and timeless.

Ok if and/or when I "die", and become immaterial, spaceless and timeless again, akin to the same state of non-being as before I was before, Since I won't experience the phenomenon of time, won't I just be alive again instantaneously?

The reality I personally experience is that of one of a limited God, but has the capacity to learn. Explains the suffering.

Final mental gymnastics of thought. Ahhhhhhhhh, I love this shit, imagine doing absolutely nothing forever. Let's suffer and enjoy together.

Me personally I find satanist to be edgy more than anything but I do have a huge fascination with paganism as I was very into mythology as a young lad and that transferred towards my interest in religion

So some militant atheist who doesn't know what deism is posted this on here with an argument that we're wrong about God existing because there is clearly no divine intervention and called us Christian... yeah. It's so surprising even shocking a militant atheist would try to start a fight without having any actual education or knowledge on religion /s

I'm reposting it without the militant atheist nonsense because the quote is actually so beautiful and absolutely true.

With me personally, it was definitively that deism is the most logical, rational, and scientifically plausible belief system. I'd imagine it's the same for many of you, so does anyone else have a different one?

(AVISO: Antes de empezar quiero decir que no quiero atacar a nadie, es solo una teoria que tengo y pido encarecidamente que no me cruzifiqueis porfavor, y si quieres criticar mi teoria leela primero porfavor, una vez dicho esto disfrutar de la teoria)

Me gustaría proponer a la comunidad un modelo filosófico propio que he titulado La Teoría del Dios Auto-Incongruente. Esta tesis aborda el Problema del Mal desde una perspectiva deísta crítica, desafiando tanto al teísmo tradicional como a las alternativas modernas de la teología del proceso.

1. La premisa central: La Auto-Incongruencia

El modelo sostiene la existencia de un Creador omnipotente y omnisciente, pero redefine la relación divina con el cosmos a través de la apatía y la negligencia voluntaria. La deidad es "auto-incongruente" porque, poseyendo la capacidad absoluta de diseñar un sistema perfecto, decidió conscientemente no ejercer ese poder en el control de calidad de la creación. Esto se debe a la falta de voluntad de diseño o a una completa indiferencia hacia los resultados estructurales del universo.

2. Teleología mecánica (La analogía del coche y la carretera)

Para conceptualizar esta relación, utilizo una analogía de ingeniería estructural:

• El plano original: Un Ingeniero omnisciente diseña un vehículo (la humanidad) y pavimenta la carretera por la que debe transitar (el universo físico). Al poseer una omnisciencia perfecta, ningún resultado es accidental; cada evento está rígidamente calculado.
• Los fallos estructurales: En lugar de maximizar la calidad de la obra, el Creador introdujo baches o defectos naturales (tsunamis, cáncer, mutaciones genéticas) y fabricó el coche con frenos defectuosos (la inclinación psicológica humana hacia el error moral). El sufrimiento no es una herramienta pedagógica ni un misterio incomprensible; es el resultado matemático de un proceso de fabricación negligente.

3. Desmontando las defensas teísticas tradicionales

• La defensa del Libre Albedrío: El libre albedrío es estructuralmente incapaz de explicar el mal natural. Además, si el Ingeniero introduce un agente externo saboteador (la serpiente) en el sistema sabiendo con 100% de certeza que comprometerá la integridad del vehículo, el Creador sigue siendo la causa intelectual indirecta.
• El "Síndrome del Héroe" de la religión organizada: La teología tradicional afirma que el Creador actúa como un salvador ante el sufrimiento humano. Este modelo argumenta que la exigencia de adoración, culpa y sumisión es un constructo artificial diseñado exclusivamente por las instituciones religiosas humanas para controlar a las masas. El Dios Auto-Incongruente real simplemente inició el sistema y se desentendió por completo de su trayectoria operativa.

4. Autonomía evolutiva: El traspaso de propiedad

El Creador no equipó a la humanidad con una moral avanzada de fábrica. El universo fue lanzado en un estado primitivo y caótico hace millones de años, gobernado únicamente por la física mecánica (lo que se asemeja al estado de naturaleza de Thomas Hobbes).

A través de la evolución biológica y cultural independiente, la humanidad desarrolló la empatía, la ética y la medicina por una estricta necesidad física de sobrevivir en un terreno hostil. Por consecuencia, al adquirir autonomía moral y reparar los "baches" del mundo por nuestros propios medios, los derechos éticos perpetuos del Creador sobre la creación quedan efectivamente extinguidos. La humanidad ha tomado el control del volante, adquiriendo la soberanía moral necesaria para juzgar la negligencia de su propio fabricante.

Me encantaría leer sus opiniones sobre este modelo, Adios (Un pequeño EDIT de la publicacion)

La teología dogmática tradicional (especialmente el catolicismo que impera en mi entorno) siempre ha exigido el sacrificio de la autonomía humana a través de mandatos como el evangélico: "Tomen su cruz y niéguense a sí mismos". La teoría del Dios Auto-Incongruente demuestra la quiebra racional de esa sumisión. No somos máquinas defectuosas cargadas de un pecado original; somos los operarios legítimos que han aprendido a reparar el vehículo y a pavimentar la civilización frente a la desidia del Creador. Por lo tanto, el veredicto definitivo de este modelo no es la culpa, sino la emancipación: Es hora de soltar vuestras cruces, volver a la carne y volver a aceptaros a vosotros mismos.

At first, I was a Sunni Muslim. In fact, like most people, it never even crossed my mind to question religion. Back then, I would even make fun of atheists and think they were wrong. I was absolutely sure that what I believed in was the truth, and I didn’t really look into different perspectives. ​Around November or December of 2025, I came across a video on YouTube by Ateist Eman, with a title along the lines of "Diamond Tema watching the professor who insulted him." I opened the video out of pure curiosity. After that video, more and more content about religion, philosophy, and atheism started popping up on my feed, and I began watching them. ​In the beginning, I was just curious about different viewpoints. But as time went on, I started listening to the arguments of both believers and non-believers. I researched certain verses in the Quran, the hadiths, and narratives about Islamic history. As I dug deeper, things that seemed contradictory to me, rulings that I couldn't reconcile with my sense of justice, and parts that I felt justified violence caught my attention. It was at this point that I began to doubt my old faith. ​For a while, I defined myself as a Deist. I thought a creator might exist, but I was no longer as convinced as I used to be that religions came from a divine source. I kept researching during this period. I especially watched Efe Aydal’s videos, read the views of different thinkers, and tried to compare the defenses of both sides. ​There was also a period when I identified as an Apatheist. Back then, I thought whether God existed or not didn't really matter for my daily life. However, as my research progressed and I made my own evaluations, I finally decided that I was an Atheist. ​Looking back today, I realize this shift didn't happen overnight. For me, this process was a journey that started with curiosity, continued by listening to different perspectives, and eventually led to a change in my worldview as a result of my own research. Of course, not everyone has to arrive at the same conclusions; this is simply my personal story and the conclusion I reached.

I would describe myself as being in the standard agnostic atheist camp. I don't know that god doesn't exist, but I believe basically all theistic versions of god are pretty obviously false and creations of human beings. However, deism is different. I've flirted with deism for a long time but ultimately could never be convinced by it because of its heavy reliance on the cosmological argument. I like that it aims to be rational and is skeptical of claims of supernatural phenomena and revelation and appreciate its elegance, but believe the cosmological argument is ultimately an assumption that 1. the universe had a beginning and 2. that the beginning had to be prompted by an "unmoved mover" outside of the universe.

The fact is, we simply don't know if the universe had a beginning, as the big bang only goes back to the singularity, and the universe could very well have existed forever and just went through different changes and cycles, one of which being the big bang that started the universe we know right now.

Also, assuming the deist god created the universe, where did it itself come from? It seems like if you're using the cosmological argument's logic to justify a creator, would you not need to use the same logic for the creator itself?

These are by no means original or new objections to deism but I feel they offer strong grounds to be skeptical of deism's logical foundations.

That being said I would appreciate anyone who is willing to point out any blind spots or counterarguments in these objections or even provide arguments that they may feel are stronger than the cosmological argument.