I asked Davide Robertson "Why you find deism more compelling than atheism?"

This was his response. What is your opinion on his reasons for finding deism more compelling?

Views: 102

Comment by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on August 28, 2016 at 9:01pm

He is wrong from the very start. Atheism is not “believing in nothing”. It is a disbelief in the existences of any god. He does not know the meaning of the word. Then he argues from ignorance about the “first cause” and plays the god card. Why does the first cause have to be god? He talks a lot without saying anything. I suspect the book he is trying to promote is much the same.

He then talks about deists growing spiritually which is also saying nothing. He talks about “new information” but does not say what it is. Then he prattles on about how deism is growing rapidly as if we should take that for granted. It is not.

He claims that deism is about intellectual growth, not just spiritual?? That is what Dan Dennett would call a “deepity” – saying something that sounds profound but is facile when given a second thought.

He states that deists (when contrasted with atheists) are constantly looking for new information on the environment, the world, the Universe etc. Yeah, we atheists have stopped asking questions.

He is as he says himself “boring”. He is intellectually dull. He has no information to offer. He says deists enjoy “intellectual stimulation” and says science is usually boring or scary??

He really has nothing compelling to offer and if he has he cannot articulate it. If he thinks he has answered the question, he has not. He is a poor copy of WL Craig.

BTW - good to see you Keith. I haven't changed much, have I?  :-)


Comment by _Robert_ on August 28, 2016 at 9:10pm
Ask him...so what caused God...? Also why does he assume the " pre universe" follows cause and effect. It's not the deepest thinking really. Just another "magic" explanation for something we do not know,
Comment by Nerdy Keith on August 29, 2016 at 7:57am

Thanks Reg, you haven't changed at all haha. Yeah you make some very good points there about David. However I wouldn't go as far as to say he's like William Craig. He's a lot more willing to listen than Craig at least. But I have to admit he hasn't really clarified his reasons for accepting the God of deism. 

Which sort of leads me back to agnosticism and I'm pretty content with that. 

Comment by Nerdy Keith on August 29, 2016 at 8:20am


He addressed that in a previous video. I'll share it here if you want to check it out. I'm not really sure if you could really say he answered the issue very clearly. But it was "addressed" in some regard. 

Comment by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on August 29, 2016 at 1:03pm

I would still say that WL Craig is streets ahead. Here is a good debate with WLC and Hitchens.

Comment by TJ on August 29, 2016 at 1:04pm

OK, watched both above vids, and, well, he's as intellectually blind as a bat.

He can't define what he believes, when making a vid to define what he believes....unless what he believes is essentially that things are complicated, and god is possibly a system rather than a being.

If he pursued that line of reasoning, he'd notice that he's describing nature and the natural world, etc....not a being.

If he'd notice that he automatically dissed the "revealed religions'" because they were in conflict with his worldview, and, in the next breath, said that atheists were closed minded to HIS version of religion, it would allow some perspective for him.

He goes on, and on, and on, about learning and gaining new information...but, always requires that information to point to the existence of god, as a given, accusing those who did the same and came to a different conclusion as close minded and rejecting knowledge.

So, he rambles on about learning, implies that only deists do it, or do it right, and, like all religions, essentially says his is right and the others are wrong...but has no proof or evidence to support his claims even against revealed religions let alone atheism.

It doesn't help that he stereotypes everyone not in his group, assigns them characteristics, and then says why the characteristics he used to define the other groups proves that deism is better, etc.

He essentially doesn't see that his religion is no better than other religions.

If all his study cannot illustrate the truth, its not a search for truth, but simply an effort to reach a predetermined conclusion by cherry picking the data.


Comment by Nerdy Keith on August 29, 2016 at 5:45pm

Yes TJ I think you may have a point there. There is indeed a sheer lack of clarity from Robertson. Which is a shame because he seems to have done quite a bit of research. Maybe he just finds it difficult finding the right key points to communicate his information with more clarity. Either way he has not really presented enough evidence or indeed reason to present a truly compelling case. 

Man I'm so glad this website is still here haha. 

Comment by TJ on August 30, 2016 at 10:07am

His research, though, is not really being performed in a productive manner. 

He finds it difficult to express what he is trying to convey, because he has run into conflicting information, and struggles to ignore the parts in conflict with his worldview.

He conflates seeking knowledge with his religion...but, as with all religions, he doesn't seem to realize that he is starting with the given of there being a deity.

If he would drop his preconceived given, and TRULY investigate as diligently as he currently thinks he is, he would, potentially, come to drop his preconceived notion....and discover what he is looking for (Truth).

He CANNOT clearly present a compelling case, because he has not found a compelling case.  Its not a lack of clarity, its the lack of a compelling case.

He resorts to dancing around the case he WANTS TO present, as compelling, albeit talks instead about learning and other things that are not relevant to his case...as if they were.


Comment by TJ on August 30, 2016 at 10:09am

If his "religion" did not have a supernatural element to it...perhaps, being the worship of science and knowledge, etc...something that at least exists, THEN all his current babble could at least be considered somewhat more relevant. 

Otherwise, its just a lot of wasted air.


Comment by Nerdy Keith on August 30, 2016 at 10:44am
Well if anything deism is still a very interesting concept. I have yet to hear a credible augment to convince me. They've certainly come up with some great arguments against organised religion. Thomas Paine is a fine example of that.

Maybe there is a chance that deism might have better arguments for it. As of right now they have not been presented. I believe it was Dawkims who said "There could be a very respectful argument to be made for deism." We are still waiting on it however.

Excellent responses by the way TJ, you have made some very relivant and compelling ponts here.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service