Okay, this is rediculous… I have a 5 and a half page reply to this topic; sorry I gave this way too much thought in advance…

A working definition of religion… which I have provided from an online dictionary:

Religion:

1. A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Next a working definition of religious:

Religious:

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

And now reverence:

Reverence:

1. A feeling of profound awe and respect and often love; veneration. See Synonyms at honor.
2. An act showing respect, especially a bow or curtsy.
3. The state of being revered.

Reverence

Used as a form of address for certain members of the Christian clergy: Your Reverence.
tr.v. rev•er•enced, rev•er•enc•ing, rev•er•enc•es
To consider or treat with profound awe and respect; venerate

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

A few of my favorite quotes from you:

“Deists believe that some omnipotent being (God) must have created the universe, they just do not see any point for being religious in their approach toward God.”

“Probably the most notable advantage is that you do not have to adhere to any religion (or anything of the sort) besides just believing in God. Another really important advantage is that you are free to respond to God in whatever way seems right to you. Church is not necessary, nor is prayer (though no deist condemns you if you do pray). Finally, you can think for yourself, using your logical mind and conscience to determine what is right and wrong. You do not have to follow the rules and standards that somebody else says is right.”

“With the exception of agnosticism, deism is probably viewed as the most indecisive of all religious philosophies, because you are not taking a stand on anything except the existence of God. Therefore, some people might think you have no backbone by following deism, insisting you should take more of a religious stand (not necessarily religion, mind you). Perhaps this is another reason why some deists are extremely argumentative, because they want to prove that they are taking a stand.”

“Deism is a very logical approach to religious questions. Similar to an agnostic, deists admit that they do not know the answer. They may lean toward one answer, but they do not deny the possibility that they might be wrong on any question other than that of God’s existence.”

Now, I understand that there may or may not be reverence for the creator that you place your belief in, but doesn’t it stand to reason that if one can respond to that creator in any way they chose, this becomes a religion? In fact I believe that several religions have the same outlook. The 3rd definition of religion is the following of a specific set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a religious leader. The definition of a type of religion, but not religion itself. The 4th definition would include the attitude of that religion but is not limited to a religious practice; in this case a religion could be the devotion one has to anything, even themselves.

And just to combat the idea of worship being mentioned:

Worship:

1. A. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
B. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
2. Ardent devotion; adoration.
3. Often Worship: Chiefly British. Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Now hang with me, here. If one can say that they are free to respond to God however they choose it stands to reason that this would include any form of worship they deem necessary, then this constitutes as a religion. Maybe the majority does not worship that God but they instead see themselves as a god, in this case you definitely have a religion because you instead look at yourself as the object of worship. Satanists believe themselves to be gods; this is from a friend of mine. They worship themselves and not some creator which may or may not exist. Does this sound familiar?

In fact, Satanism follows a lot of the same ideas that deists do; the idea that they are free to do anything they choose. They can “leave” their faith if they believe there is benefit in following another. They can choose to go to church, or not go to church (most prefer not to.) They don’t accept or deny any religion to be true. Oh, and the most important advantage is that one can think for themselves. Now, I realize that there is a lot more to Satanism, including a form of witchcraft and they even have their own bible. For the most part, though, a Satanist can choose to do anything they please as long as it fulfills their desires and is beneficial to them.

Similarly, your belief is devoted to the idea that you are free to do as you wish, thus placing yourself as the object of devotion and love. You pursue this belief with conscientious devotion. Your duty is to please yourself, and thus you have the profound awe and respect for none other than yourself (hmm, a complete devotion.) Your worship practice is displayed in the ceremonies of your life. And you have ceremonies; what do you do to please yourself? (Let’s see, anything you want.) How often do you do this? (Daily) Then, it’s a ceremony!

By assuming God has withdrawn and left us to ourselves, you have thus made a god of yourself (or believe God has made us gods.) If God looks for you to live for yourself and not recognize Him, then the only option is to accept that God has allowed for us to be as gods ourselves (because then we are completely devoted to the highest being, in this case God is no longer involved so that leave us as the highest beings there are.) If we are the highest beings left over, then we are all gods and therefore, we are equal. If we are equal, we could choose to worship anyone we want. You choose to worship yourself, if you believe that you have complete dominion over your life.

Exalting yourself to god and following your passionate desire to please yourself, along with the ceremonies of pleasing yourself; you have created your own religion. And you accept and believe that others around you with this same self religion are correct. Thus, these combined individuals all pull together to form a religion that they call deism.

Whether you like it or not, it’s a religion. There is no one set “standard” and yet there is… doing whatever pleases yourself. And didn’t you know that churches don’t need a central place for worship? There are people all over America that believe themselves to be Christians even though they do not step foot inside a church building, they live their lives much the same as you do now; for themselves, only giving God some reverence when it suits their fancy.

Take all of that how you will, it’s not a condemnation or speculation, it’s just stating some facts.

Now, let’s point out what I see as logical fallacy.

Let’s start with the fact that you specifically state that Deism is logical and yet you say,
“deism is probably viewed as the most indecisive of all religious philosophies, because you are not taking a stand on anything except the existence of God.” Also, you say, “deists are extremely argumentative.” And yet, I wonder why they need to “prove they are taking a stand.” How? What are they taking a stand for or against? Because, “deists admit that they do not know the answer;” in fact you say, “they do not deny the possibility that they might be wrong.” Sounds to me as if they really don’t know much more than the fact that they want to be in control of their own lives. Which I suppose you could be trying to say this is what they stand for, and yet if they admit that they can be wrong, then why be argumentative? What exactly is the point of an argument? To prove that your argument is correct, yet if you concede that your argument could be wrong, then why argue? There’s nothing to prove, the argument just becomes circular.

For example, if you say that there is a possibility that you could be wrong, then there is a chance someone else is right. Yet, you continue to argue that your world view is correct, even though it could be wrong (circular argument.) If you admit that your world view could be wrong, then your argument has no grounds. You can neither prove nor deny proof that your belief or lack of belief exists for a reason (another circular argument.) If someone else comes to you with no proof but wants to argue with you, then neither of you has an advantage because you have no proof, you’re arguing for the sake of argument. If someone comes to you and offers proof, then you lose the argument because you’d have to admit you’re wrong.

Arguing that you want to have complete dominion over your own life is valid. Saying that someone can choose to believe and not interact with God is also valid. Saying that you don’t know whether you’re right or wrong, and then assuming that worshiping a god that “may or may not exist” is a waste of time is illogical, for all you know you could be wrong. Looking for proof of the god that may or may not exist is logical. Not worshiping that god until you know it exists is logical but the assumption that worshiping that god is a waste of time until you know it exists is illogical; again, you could be wrong.

Thinking that there is no reason to follow a list of rules, in regard to a religion, until you know that religion is correct is logical. Saying that you could be wrong about those rules being wrong is just as good as saying they are right. Looking to have the rules be proven to work is logical. Assuming the rules to be wrong or not follow them just because they are tied to a religion is illogical, for all you know those rules could be right but the religion is wrong. A list of moral rules to follow is something that a religion or an individual can adopt, they don’t make the rules right or wrong and it doesn’t make the religion or individual right or wrong.

“You do not have to follow the rules and standards that somebody else says is right,” this is a logical fallacy. You have neither proven nor denied those rules to be wrong, for all you know, you could be following those rules and living up to those standards. Accepting and believing what you want from those rules seems like good judgment; maybe even formulating your own list of rules out of those is just as well. Although, if society agrees even in part with those rules, to not follow any of the rules would not be good judgment, thus, the logical fallacy.

Assuming that “you can think for yourself, using your logical mind and conscience to determine what is right and wrong,” seems like a winner. But who’s to say that you are thinking logically or that your conscience won’t misguide you? You could believe that the logical solution to an argument with someone is to kill the opposition and your conscience could agree, but does that make it right? I’m sure that many killers think that at the time they kill. But can you truly say they exercised their best judgment? They would think so at the time, and if they are truly crazy they may still think so. Just because you believe that something is right, doesn’t mean it is always right. In fact that goes back to your war idea. The country going to war may believe they are right and justified in doing so, but are they using their best judgment? They have the right and responsibility to think and believe how they desire, how do you know they are wrong?

“You do not have to follow the rules and standards that somebody else says is right.” Does this only apply to religious beliefs? Well, many religious battles have been fought for that very reason. Did it make it right for them to fight for those beliefs? And who can say they are wrong? Again, they have the right to use their conscience to guide them. Can you possibly disagree with someone fighting for their beliefs if you are not sure whether they are right or wrong? If they believe your rules and standards are wrong, can you disagree with them? All you have is your conscience to guide you, it could be misleading you.

“Some people might think you have no backbone by following deism, insisting you should take more of a religious stand.” I like this one the best. It perfectly sets you up for the situation above. If someone else believes your values and standards are wrong, what do you do? You argue. But as I mentioned before, how are you arguing? What are you arguing for? You say that you should argue to prove that you are taking a stand, but yet I see nothing you’re taking a stand for or against. Your only argument that I can see is that you do what you think and feel are right, allowing you logical mind and conscience to guide you. If no one person is right or wrong, where are your values? What exactly do you believe? Can you honestly believe that millions of people are all correct?
What if you believe that everyone can use as much water as they desired, yet in another country where water is scarce one sees it as immoral to use more than one needed, even though they desire more. Sure each is following what their conscience is dictating but both cannot be right. It is logical to accept that your surroundings are indicative of what you believe but not all surroundings are the same and thus, it is illogical to say that all beliefs are correct. Also, this is not limited to circumstantial beliefs or customs. This does include many major religious philosophies. How do you think a lot of them got started? Most of it was based on circumstances, some where institutionalized for the common good of their society. Their lists of rules governed their daily lives and thus became a religion.

Okay, this post is long enough. Give it some thought; some feed back would be nice… I may have missed something or taken something out of context. I look forward to hearing a rebuttal, you will probably have some good stuff to shoot back at me; point out my logical errors, or where I felt there was one in yours but there isn’t one.

Joe