DEISM = ATHEISM

agreed

The greatest opponents of Theism are atheists. To be against something you think doesn't exist is like saying there are no apple trees. In principle you could use any placeholder and say that there is nothing good under the sun or that there is no stupidity. If I negate God, it doesn't mean that I am very different from the view that says that God exists.

Actually, the atheists are the best friends of the theists because they assure each other of the subject. The theme is what unites them in their enmity. You cannot argue about something you do not get satisfaction from. The eternal dispute is not about whether God exists or not, but about whether one is willing to understand the other. It actually means: Grant me my kind of worldview, although I do not grant you yours. An absurd contradiction. Or more directly: Agree with me even though I don't agree with you. It is an attitude that demands maturity from the other, but is not aware of it. The extreme, which is loud about this, thinks of the other rather as an enemy, but overlooks that the other is much more of a friend than it appears to be.

There is the reproach to the theists: Is it not enough that I admire a beautiful garden? Must a fairy also live under every leaf?

The answer of the Theist might be: What's wrong with the idea of a fairy under every leaf?

I suspect that behind the mutual rejection is the assumption that people who believe in God are retrograde or anti-progressive, and the few extreme examples where this seems obvious are enough for the atheist to flush all the theists down the toilet at the same time. The theists accuse the atheists of ruthlessness by claiming that an unbeliever has nothing to hold on to and is therefore a bad companion for fellow human beings on their deathbed.

Neither of them realize that they represent the majority of human views that try to agree on something on which they have long since agreed. That there is an issue worth arguing about.

One can offer the other some mental surprises and after all everyone is looking for that. For intelligent suggestions. So anyone who sees himself as an advocate of one side or the other is called upon to argue elegantly. Nothing less is expected of each other than to practice the art of argumentation, to refine it and to remain open to the unexpected. However, insofar as this openness is not encouraged by either one or the other, but rather pessimism prevails from the outset that the other will not be accessible to any suggestion, the prophecy is always fulfilled by itself.