Both literally believe that there's no form of supernatural intervention in the universe in form of revelation, miracles or any form of personal relationship with a god. Which is actually provable depending on the characteristics of the theistic God involved.

However, deism believes that a creator exist and the universe didn't just pop up from nowhere, on the other hand, Atheism don't believe in the existence of a creator.

Deism makes a claim without evidence, atheism requires evidence to believe. While the Philosophical burden of proof is on deists to provide evidence their claims but atheism fail to provide a counter-evidence.
Atheist always argue that they don't have to disprove it since they didn't make the claim, but that's not always the case in empiricism. The evidence for many scientific theories were not actually provided by the person who first conceived or proposed the ideas. Scientists most times usually conceive ideas and then other scientists argue that idea and in times when the scientist that proposed the idea didn't bring evidence for it, but keeps selling that idea, his colleagues will find evidence against it to disprove him.


In that regard, both atheism and deism are guilty of committing fallacy of appealing to ignorance in different ways:
1. Atheism is a flaw which suggests that an absence of evidence for existence of a creator means that a creator cannot exist. It doesn't actually have any evidence against it hence it really doesn't know.

2. Deism makes the conclusion without evidence that creator exist. It claims that the unavailability of evidence for God means that God must exist.

The idea is that they both reach conclusions from ignorance and then keep shifting responsibilities on whom should find the evidence.

So you mean that Atheism is also a logical fallacy?

FatherOfJesus:
So you mean that Atheism is also a logical fallacy?

Yes, atheism is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance, same as deism.
Atheism and deism are different from conventional theism.
Although deism is a form of theism, but theist who believe in oerosnla gods committed a much bigger fallacy called The invincible ignorance fallacy, also known as argument by pigheadedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given.

There are plethora of evidence against their gods but they simply reject them without analyzing.

Same thing I was trying to explain to Maynman yesterday

Workch:
Same thing I was trying to explain to Maynman yesterday

Atheism means godless, we reject the notions of all gods.

Maynman:

Atheism means godless, we reject the notions of all gods.

okay?

How did you arrive at rejecting it?

Trollronaldo:
Yes, atheism is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance, same as deist

This fallacy of appealing to ignorance is not limited to gods, it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Trollronaldo:
okay?

How did you arrive at rejecting it?

Because they are gods, the same way i also reject Santa and flying horses existing.

Maynman:

This fallacy if appealing to ignorance is not limited to gods, it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

But Atheism arrives at a conclusion of "there's no God"

How did they arrive at that conclusion if there's no evidence against it?

Maynman:

Because they are gods, the same way i also reject Santa and flying horses existing.

How did you know flying horses don't exist?

Trollronaldo:
But Atheism arrives at a conclusion of "there's no God"

How did they arrive at that conclusion if there's no evidence against it?

That There’s no god or gods.
You putting capital G there, you already going in the way of monotheism.
Yahweh is a god, allah is a god, yahweh and allah are 2 gods, atheists reject all gods!

Trollronaldo:
How did you know flying horses don't exist?

There’s no evidence to it.
If you think it can exist fine, just be consistent thoroughout.

Maynman:

That There’s no god or gods.
You putting capital G there, you already going in the way of monotheism.
Yahweh is a god, allah is a god, yahweh and allah are 2 gods, atheists reject all gods!

the capital G nonsense doesn't matter to me.
How did you know that atleast one of the many versions of God don't exist?

Trollronaldo:
the capital G nonsense doesn't matter to me.
How did you know that atleast one of the many versions of God don't exist?

None of the Deities has been proven to exist, we have millions of them, if they make a claim of their deities they should prove it.

Maynman:


There’s no evidence to it.

Okay,
A resplendent rainbow fish was discovered last year in 2022.

Does it mean that the species didn't exist in 2021?

Maynman:

None of the Deities has been proven to exist, we have millions of them, if they make a claim of their deities they should prove it.

If they have been proven not to exist, does it mean that they do not exist?

Trollronaldo:
Okay,
A resplendent rainbow fish was discovered last year in 2022.

Does it mean that the species didn't exist in 2021?

It was after it was discovered you knew right?
If someone said it exist before 2022, why can’t they also prove it?

Trollronaldo:
If they have been proven not to exist, does it mean that they do not exist?

How did you come up with the conclusion that they exist in the first place?
I can just cook up jargons and claim they exist, then ask people to prove that it doesn’t exist.

Maynman:

It was after it was discovered you knew right?
If someone said it exist before 2022, why can’t they also prove it?

Nope, I want say it cannot exist until proven right or wrong.
I will remain skeptical.

The moment I reach a conclusion, I have committed a fallacy

Maynman:


How did you come up with the conclusion that they exist in the first place?
I can just cook up jargons and claim they exist, then ask people to prove that it doesn’t exist.

Did you read the Op?
This has been resolved there

Trollronaldo:
Nope, I want say it cannot exist until proven right or wrong.
I will remain skeptical.

The moment I reach a conclusion, I have committed a fallacy

Very good, i also hope it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Maynman:


How did you come up with the conclusion that they exist in the first place?
I can just cook up jargons and claim they exist, then ask people to prove that it doesn’t exist.

The idea of a deistic god is not jargon.

Trollronaldo:
Did you read the Op?
This has been resolved there

What was resolved?

Maynman:


What was resolved?

read the op

Trollronaldo:
The idea of a deistic god is not jargons.

How did you come up with a deistic god? Is it not though theism?
Why do you think a thing can transcend time?

Trollronaldo:
read the op

He said nothing, he is a monotheist apologist.

Maynman:


How did you come up with a deistic god? Is it not though theism?
Why do you think a thing can transcend time?

I am not a deist.

I won't accept their ideas and that of atheists until an evidence for or against suffices.

Maynman:

He said nothing, he is a monotheist apologist.

if you carefully read the OP, you will realize I wrote it.

Learn to calm down and read. Go back and read it, this time carefully

Trollronaldo:
I am not a deist.

I won't accept their ideas and that of atheists until an evidence for or against suffices.

Atheists reject all gods. What are “gods”?

Good, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Trollronaldo:
if you carefully read the OP, you will realize I wrote it.

Learn to calm down and read. Go back and read it, this time carefully

The op said nothing, the characteristics he gave to this god how did he come up with it?
Why does he think a thing can transcend time and space?

Maynman:

Atheists reject all gods. What are “gods”?

Good, as lon as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

How did you know that a deistic god doesn't exist before rejecting it?

Trollronaldo:
How did you know that a deistic god doesn't exist before rejecting it?

How did you come with a deistic theos?