>>16597461
yes

>>16597461
It's inevitable conclusion is irreligion: "Oh ya I believe in this "god" being but I can't know anything about him, therefore he is irrelevant in my life."

>>16597461
It was actually ahead of its time

>>16597461
Deism, pure theism, is still based on a claim. That of God's existence.
They may attempt to use the Onthological argument and such but these prove to be inconclusive at best with questionable axioms and premises. What's left is a claim for a supernatural being which has found no presence or use in modern scientific models and has no business being shoehorned into any of them.

Agnostic is also a claim, the claim of the possibility of God. Of a supernatural being. It remains a dubious one.

Atheism has shown itself to be the most justified position of the three. As the refutation of dubious claims.

>>16597461
Atheism didn't seem viable to many because the clock-maker analogy still seemed to fit with the science of the time. There was no other explanation for things like the planets being in a single plane, or the complexity of life. Not to mention atheism was often illegal. I think if many famous deists knew what we know no a lot of them would be atheists or agnostic.

>>16598096
>Atheism didn't seem viable to many because the clock-maker analogy still seemed to fit with the science of the time.
You have retards still falling for it today, just check the catalog for proof.