Pope says atheists can go to heaven...

[Mighty AC]

I miss the old school atheists. The non prothletizing kind. The age atheists are as bad as the religious types push their views on everyone.

Unfortunately the barrier between church and state was long ago breached, and religion is not removing itself from the public sphere on its own. In addition, we have no problem challenging conspiracy theorists or baseless political and economic beliefs here at MLW, why should baseless mystical beliefs be exempt from criticism?

[overthere]

Because the pope thinks he controls the pearly gates.

Well yeah... of course.

I can't be arsed with all this Godbothering and churchifying so I'm taking the old fashioned route to Heaven: buying indulgences.

Here's the 2014 question: can I use BitCoin to grease the skids?

[carepov]

It is certainly true that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of gods or extraterrestrial life. So it would be silly to claim they exist. It would be downright ludicrous to indoctrinate children into belief in either and then teach them to take pride in their baseless beliefs.

However, unlike gods there is evidence that life exists on this planet. We also know that there are many billions of planets with similar conditions to earth in the Milky Way galaxy alone. Current estimates say there are 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the universe. The chance of something along the lines of abiogenesis is remote, however, when given 400 sextillion rolls of the dice the odds become possible or even probable. Still we must say alien life is just a possibility until we find some...claiming otherwise would be a silly leap of faith.

Probability based on evidence is quite a bit different than brainwashed belief in magic men.

Which one is it, is the belief in extraterrestrial intelligent life based on evidence or is there absolutely no evidence?

There are all sorts of non-evidence based beliefs, some religious and some non-religious. Some are crazy/silly and some are reasonable, some are benign, some harmful and some are even beneficial.

There are reasonable and good people that are religious and reasonable and good people that are not. Doesn't it make more sense to stop dividing the already limited numbers of reasonable, good people and instead direct criticism of harmful and dangerous beliefs?

[Mighty AC]

Which one is it, is the belief in extraterrestrial intelligent life based on evidence or is there absolutely no evidence?

There is no reasonable belief that extraterrestrial life is a certainty, just a strong probability that life of some sort exists elsewhere in the universe. This probability is based on the fact that the life harbouring conditions that exist on earth are repeated many, many times.

There are reasonable and good people that are religious and reasonable and good people that are not. Doesn't it make more sense to stop dividing the already limited numbers of reasonable, good people and instead direct criticism of harmful and dangerous beliefs?

Granted, there are good people with all sorts of unreasonable or delusional beliefs. However, when a baseless idea negatively impacts the lives of billions of people, in ways that range from simply unfair to down right evil, something has to be done. Hopefully, by challenging beliefs and shedding light on the evils and inequities, the good believers you speak of, will stop (unwittingly) lending their support to the organizations responsible for the problems.

[jbg]

Do they believe in God? That's not a question you can logically abstain from. Either you believe in God or you don't.

I think that's the wrong question. I subscribe to the saying "pray as if everything depended on G-d; act as if everything depended on you.

[cybercoma]

I think that's the wrong question. I subscribe to the saying "pray as if everything depended on G-d; act as if everything depended on you.

it's not the wrong question when you're asking whether or not a person is atheist.

[TimG]

just a strong probability that life of some sort exists elsewhere in the universe. This probability is based on the fact that the life harbouring conditions that exist on earth are repeated many, many times.

There is no proof that a belief in a higher power helps addicts. Just lots and lots of clinical evidence and a plausible theory based in our knowledge of psychology. Yet you reject it outright. Now you try to argue that a belief in extraterrestrials is not bad because it is 'plausible'. Sounds like you are letting your fanatical anti-theism to make decisions instead of using logic and analysis.

FYI - My knowledge of addiction treatments does not come from google and wikipedia - it comes from personal experience with family members. I have seen what works and what does not. Over the years, I have talked to many professionals working to help addicts. And I can tell you that for some addicts developing a belief in a higher power makes a huge difference and your claim that it is coincidental is just a bunch of BS you invent to rationalize your anti-theism. If you actually tried talking to professionals that treat addicts you would find the overwhelming majority agree with me.

Edited February 1, 2014 by TimG

[Bonam]

FYI - My knowledge of addiction treatments does not come from google and wikipedia - it comes from personal experience with family members. I have seen what works and what does not. Over the years, I have talked to many professionals working to help addicts. And I can tell you that for some addicts developing a belief in a higher power makes a huge difference and your claim that it is coincidental is just a bunch of BS you invent to rationalize your anti-theism. If you actually tried talking to professionals that treat addicts you would find the overwhelming majority agree with me.

Not much to argue with here. Using belief in a higher power is a tried and true method of keeping people in line, and has been for thousands of years. Break down a person's mind, tear away from them any sense that they control their own lives, put all power into the hands of a supernatural being that judges and controls them, and then tell them what that being wants to avoid punishment or to provide reward. It is why the Roman emperors imposed Christianity on the unruly masses, and why it works on addicts too. The ultimate carrot and stick setup, as long as you can convince the person to believe, despite a complete lack of tangible evidence. And, of course, the weakened confused mind of a recovering addict is the perfect prey, just like the minds of children who are indoctrinated in religion before they can think critically.

[TimG]

The ultimate carrot and stick setup, as long as you can convince the person to believe, despite a complete lack of tangible evidence. And, of course, the weakened confused mind of a recovering addict is the perfect prey, just like the minds of children who are indoctrinated in religion before they can think critically.

In this case I am not talking about a situation where some other human defines what the god is and and provides self serving interpretations to people that cannot be questioned. In this case the higher power is defined entirely by the person involved and that makes it something that has absolutely no controlling aspect to it. It a psychological mechanism that allows an addict to better manage their out of control ego and develop a sense of personal peace. It is nothing but a positive in this context.

Your response makes me think of someone that looks in a tool box and claims that the screwdriver is a tool of the weak minded and that no one should ever need to use it because it is possible to misuse it. A more rational approach would accept that all tools have their use and learn when and why each tool should be used.

Aside: The people who look to control masses today in the way you describe don't need religion - they have science. Look at the example of climate science. You have complex data and computer models which most people cannot understand even if they wanted to. You have "priests" telling people what these "scriptures" say and are threatened with an apocalypse if they don't follow the instructions of the "priests". People who question the claims of the "priests" are condemned as "heretics" and are publicly vilified. Based on this example alone one could condemn science as a tool to control weak minded people but we both know that the failures of climate science are not in the science but in the hands of the people who abuse it. The same is true of a belief in god.

Edited February 1, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

You know what else seems to work for addicts? The transcendental experience they can get from doing LSD.

[Bonam]

Your response makes me think of someone that looks in a tool box and claims that the screwdriver is a tool of the weak minded and that no one should ever need to use it because it is possible to misuse it. A more rational approach would accept that all tools have their use and learn when and why each tool should be used.

Religion is like a hammer with which you can pound nails into someone's mind. If their mind is already falling apart, maybe it can help to hold the pieces together. But otherwise keep it the heck away.

Aside: The people who look to control masses today in the way you describe don't need religion - they have science. Look at the example of climate science. You have complex data and computer models which most people cannot understand even if they wanted to. You have "priests" telling people what these "scriptures" say and are threatened with an apocalypse if they don't follow the instructions of the "priests". People who question the claims of the "priests" are condemned as "heretics" and are publicly vilified.

I would certainly agree that anyone presenting science in this way is misusing it. I'd argue that it is not science at all when presented in such a fashion.

[TimG]

Religion is like a hammer with which you can pound nails into someone's mind. If their mind is already falling apart, maybe it can help to hold the pieces together. But otherwise keep it the heck away.

Chemotherapy drugs are generally toxic but if given to the right people in the right way they save lives. That is why people don't go around saying that chemotherapy drugs should be bad. The same is true with a theism - it helps some people in some situations and you should acknowledge that (NOT religion - theism and religion are two distinct concepts).

I would certainly agree that anyone presenting science in this way is misusing it. I'd argue that it is not science at all when presented in such a fashion.

Sure. But that is my point. I suspect the real issue is fanaticism and people can be fanatics about anything. One can be a theist without being a fanatic. Edited February 1, 2014 by TimG

[Bonam]

Chemotherapy drugs are generally toxic but if given to the right people in the right way they save lives. That is why people don't go around saying that chemotherapy drugs should be bad. The same is true with a theism - it helps some people in some situations and you should acknowledge that (NOT religion - theism and religion are two distinct concepts)

Yes, I agree with your analogy. In some special cases poison is preferable to the alternative. Religion is like a chemotherapy drug, toxic and harmful, to be administered only to patients who truly need it to avoid even grimmer consequences. Unfortunately, this particular drug is forced upon the majority of the world's children from as soon as they can understand spoken words.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Bonam

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes, I agree with your analogy. In some special cases poison is preferable to the alternative. Religion is like a chemotherapy drug, toxic and harmful, to be administered only to patients who truly need it to avoid even grimmer consequences. Unfortunately, this particular drug is forced upon the majority of the world's children from as soon as they can understand spoken words.

And not only the children, also the poor, the children of the poor, the uneducated and illiterate and downtrodden. I have personally witnessed a lot of gold guilt slathered on temples. churches, mosques, which was funded by people who were starving to death within the shadows of those monuments to oppression. When I die I will go wherever I am supposed to go. I don't think I need to buy a ticket whist I'm still here.

[TimG]

Religion is like a chemotherapy drug, toxic and harmful, to be administered only to patients who truly need it to avoid even grimmer consequences.

First, I am talking about theism - not religion. They are different words with different meanings because one can be a theist but not be religious. After the lectures I got on atheism I would expect you to be precise when it comes to these things.

Second, analogies can only be taken so far. In the case of chemotherapy drugs the toxic side effects are well documented. When it comes to theism there are no known identifiable negative effects. The only issue is the largely academic objection to the idea that someone would choose to believe something that is most likely not true. But if someone benefits from adopting such a belief then there is no reason to discourage it.

Third, people are entitled to tell their children what they believe. With young children this usually means they will believe it too. In many cases, teaching a child their religion (note that I am not talking about theism now) is about teaching their child their culture. i.e. Jewish culture and history cannot be easily separated from the religion. For this reason, you really have no business objecting to the principle that parents teach their children their religion/culture from an early age. You have a legitimate gripe when it comes to specific teachings which are not compatible with the values needed for people to get along in a multicultural society but those are the exceptions as opposed to the rule.

Aside: I find it interesting that the arguments that anti-theists use to complain about religious education of children are identical to the arguments used by some religious types to complain about adoption by homosexuals. Both have no evidence to support their beliefs that it is bad yet both claim that teaching young children ideas which they object to is a form of abuse. Both views need to be rejected because they are incompatible with the values needed for a functional multicultural society.

Edited February 2, 2014 by TimG

[Bonam]

First, I am talking about theism - not religion. They are different words with different meanings because one can be a theist but not be religious. After the lectures I got on atheism I would expect you to be precise when it comes to these things.

You're right, theism and religion are, at least theoretically, different things. I have never encountered a "theist" who was not religious, however, nor heard of such people. Going back to your example of the AA 12 step program, here is the list of the 12 steps:

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Note steps 2-7. That to me clearly spells out a form of religion, not just theism. It is not simply belief that a "higher power" exists, but belief that this "higher power" has the specific ability to "restore sanity", that this higher power cares about humans and "turning our lives over to him", that he cares about being "humbly asked". Those are clear characteristics of religion. What AA advocates is not simply theism but religion. It may not be any specific religion, and perhaps the individual is allowed to privately invent their own little religion in their heads, but it's still religion. Hence why I used the term religion, rather than theism, in discussing this particular example.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Bonam

[Bonam]

Second, analogies can only be taken so far. In the case of chemotherapy drugs the toxic side effects are well documented. When it comes to theism there are no known identifiable negative effects. The only issue is the largely academic objection to the idea that someone would choose to believe something that is most likely not true.

I disagree. My view is that there is demonstrable harm to believing in most religions, both to the individual who believes and to society at large. Perhaps the simple belief that a higher power exists (theism) may not be harmful, but while the word certainly has a different meaning from religion (as you pointed out), the reality is that theism is one of the tenets used by those who promulgate most religions, and is not generally found without religion, at least to my knowledge. In fact, it seems to me that if one accepts that a higher power exists, and that this higher power is indeed "higher" in that it has abilities that are able to affect the real world, the "soul", an "afterlife", or whatever else, then religion seems to be logically inescapable.

Third, people are entitled to tell their children what they believe. With young children this usually means they will believe it too.

Parents certainly have certain prerogatives about how to raise their children. However, we as a society generally disallow parents from doing things to their children that are considered to be seriously harmful or damaging. I think there is a serious argument to be made that indoctrinating them with religion falls into that category.

In many cases, teaching a child their religion (note that I am not talking about theism now) is about teaching their child their culture. i.e. Jewish culture and history cannot be easily separated from the religion.

I disagree. Children can learn about and be a part of their culture without believing in a specific religion. Knowing about the religion is enough, one does not have to believe in it. My family is ethnically Jewish and I have sufficient understanding of Jewish culture, despite being an atheist. In fact, a large fraction of Jews these days are atheists (if this sounds like a paradox to you, look up the definition of a Jew).

Aside: I find it interesting that the arguments that anti-theists use to complain about religious education of children are identical to the arguments used by some religious types to complain about adoption by homosexuals. Both have no evidence to support their beliefs that it is bad yet both claim that teaching young children ideas which they object to is a form of abuse. Both views need to be rejected because they are incompatible with the values needed for a functional multicultural society.

I am not certain that either view can necessarily be rejected out of hand. Furthermore, views should be accepted or rejected based on real evidence and/or reason/logic, not based on whether they are "compatible with a multicultural society" (i.e. ideology).

Edited February 3, 2014 by Bonam

[TimG]

What AA advocates is not simply theism but religion. It may not be any specific religion, and perhaps the individual is allowed to privately invent their own little religion in their heads, but it's still religion. Hence why I used the term religion, rather than theism, in discussing this particular example.

The ritual part of AA (the meetings, the creed, etc.) do constitute a religion. But my argument is the theism is what provides the psychological tools that help the addict deal with the addiction (i.e. an addict could dispense with all of the AA religion but keep the theism and still benefit from the belief). OTOH, an addict that did not develop the theism and depended entirely on the ritual will usually struggle to stay sober. Group support is helpful but the problems an addict must face are in his/her head and that is where a belief in a higher power helps and that is why I brought up AA as an example of how theism can be beneficial.

I have also met many theists who have no religion - including people who have never had an addiction problem. I suspect that if you do not encounter them it may be because once such people hear your view on theism they choose to keep their beliefs to themselves (theists without a religion feel no need to proselytize)

Edited February 3, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

Perhaps the simple belief that a higher power exists (theism) may not be harmful, but while the word certainly has a different meaning from religion (as you pointed out), the reality is that theism is one of the tenets used by those who promulgate most religions, and is not generally found without religion, at least to my knowledge.

I am not seeing the harm that you are seeing. I agree that religious beliefs have been responsible for many injustices but religious belief is not the only vehicle used to control people. Nationalism and ideology have also been extremely harmful (look at Mao and Stalin). So if you are looking to eliminate religious belief because of the harms caused you should also be looking to eliminate nationalism and ideology since they are no better. I think it makes more sense to focus on the specific beliefs that result in injustices rather than attack only one of the frameworks used to develop those beliefs.

In fact, it seems to me that if one accepts that a higher power exists, and that this higher power is indeed "higher" in that it has abilities that are able to affect the real world, the "soul", an "afterlife", or whatever else, then religion seems to be logically inescapable.

There is no requirement for an afterlife with a higher power. Someone could conceive the higher power as a matrix that connects all living things and that death disconnects people from the matrix. Once could also believe there is an afterlife but be completely agnostic about it which means there is no need for a religious framework.

Parents certainly have certain prerogatives about how to raise their children. However, we as a society generally disallow parents from doing things to their children that are considered to be seriously harmful or damaging. I think there is a serious argument to be made that indoctrinating them with religion falls into that category.

I would say there is no argument to be made that religion is harmful in itself. Lets go back to the AA example, a recovered addict with children should want to teach his/her children about what he does to stay sober because these children may encounter the same difficulties later in life (especially relevant given the genetic link to addiction). That teaching will likely to include how he/she relies on a higher power. Can you honestly say that such lessons are bad for children?

I disagree. Children can learn about and be a part of their culture without believing in a specific religion. Knowing about the religion is enough, one does not have to believe in it.

Unlike university students, when children are taught their family culture they are usually required to participate in various rituals that have a foundation the religion. During such participation the children will often be exposed to family members and friends who do believe even if the parents do not. Most parents are not going to bad mouth their friends and relatives so religious beliefs will be presented as something positive or harmless even if it is not required of the children.

Obviously there will be exceptions to the scenario above but it is common enough to make it impossible to separate the teaching of culture from the teaching of religion to children.

I am not certain that either view can necessarily be rejected out of hand. Furthermore, views should be accepted or rejected based on real evidence and/or reason/logic, not based on whether they are "compatible with a multicultural society" (i.e. ideology).

Well I was looking for a short hand way to acknowledge that some religious teachings are extremely odious and are rightly condemned. The question we are discussing here is whether society should reject the specific beliefs which are odious or condemn all religion. I say it wrong to discuss rejecting all religious belief because many religious beliefs are harmless and society has no business interfering with personal choices when those choices cause no harm. Edited February 3, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

While I always like, and often agree with Bonam's posts, including those on religious subjects, I'm inclined to Tim's view on this matter.

Contrary to Hitchens' "Religion poisons everything," I believe that religion (and at its worst) merely replicates and exploits already-existing weaknesses in the individual and social psyche.

In the same way that people can't, at the moment anyway, sprout wings and fly, I see it as impossible for religion to cause abominable behavior; to clarify (because I understand this sounds, at best, counterintuitive), religion as a negative is an effect, not a cause. All the horrors are innate, innately human. And religion is a, not the, vessel in which bad ideas and bad compulsions can be exacerbated.

Hell, we can look right here; I daresay all of us on MLW have at times shaken our heads in disbelief at ideas we perceive as so profoundly preposterous (even dangerous, at times) that we might view the offending ideas as faith-based....as, effectively, religious ones. I've not a doubt that people have thought this of myself, as I have of many others.

(to complicate things a bit, the person who is viewing others with amazement can herself be misperceiving reality thanks to her, effectively "religious," worldview on certain subjects. That is, our opinion that someone is thoughtless or incorrect or crude or stupid can be the result of our own "religious" views on political matters.)

This is all just my long and self-indulgent way of saying that the non-religious are in most ways--and fundamental ways--beset by the same weaknesses.

(And strengths, but that's maybe a slightly different subject.)

I should add that I'm not defending Biblical literalists, Creationists, violent jihadists or the killers of abortionists. I have no patience for religious lunacy.

Fortunately, and self-evidently, the vast majority of religious people (ie the majority of people) are only occasionally lunatics, as I rarely am myself.

[-1=e^ipi]

Still waiting for Tim to respond to

Oh come on, this is silly! The belief in god is a universally held human value?

In that case you would have no issue changing the preamble to:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of universally held human values and the rule of law"?

Third, people are entitled to tell their children what they believe. With young children this usually means they will believe it too.

Yes, this is protected under freedom of speech.

Aside: I find it interesting that the arguments that anti-theists use to complain about religious education of children are identical to the arguments used by some religious types to complain about adoption by homosexuals. Both have no evidence to support their beliefs that it is bad yet both claim that teaching young children ideas which they object to is a form of abuse.

Wait, are we talking about simply telling your children of your religious beliefs or brainwashing your kids to believe in your fairy tales without question. Because a lot of harm can come from the second.

[-1=e^ipi]

You're right, theism and religion are, at least theoretically, different things. I have never encountered a "theist" who was not religious, however, nor heard of such people.

Oh come on, really? There are plenty of non-religious theists. Deists and Pantheists are non-religious theists and they certainly exist. Thomas Jefferson and Isaac Newton are examples of non-religious theists. And many non-religious arguments will justify their position with arguments like 'well something had to come before the big bang and create the universe, so god must exist.' Of course these arguments fly in the face of occum's razor, ignore the fact that space & time and therefore causality came before the big bang, the fact that the big bang theory is still under some dispute, and just lead to the question of 'well who created god, and if god doesn't need a creator then why does the universe.'

But to say that non-religious theists don't exist... I just cannot agree with that position.

I disagree. Children can learn about and be a part of their culture without believing in a specific religion. Knowing about the religion is enough, one does not have to believe in it. My family is ethnically Jewish and I have sufficient understanding of Jewish culture, despite being an atheist. In fact, a large fraction of Jews these days are atheists (if this sounds like a paradox to you, look up the definition of a Jew).

Interesting. Unrelated but may I ask what is your position on circumcision?

[-1=e^ipi]

Contrary to Hitchens' "Religion poisons everything," I believe that religion (and at its worst) merely replicates and exploits already-existing weaknesses in the individual and social psyche.

In the same way that people can't, at the moment anyway, sprout wings and fly, I see it as impossible for religion to cause abominable behavior; to clarify (because I understand this sounds, at best, counterintuitive), religion as a negative is an effect, not a cause. All the horrors are innate, innately human. And religion is a, not the, vessel in which bad ideas and bad compulsions can be exacerbated.

Oh come one, this is silly. It is one thing to say that some religions aren't so bad and may even be beneficial under some circumstances. But to say that no religion can cause abominable behaviour (due to say certain religious texts that command people to do bad things) is absurd.

[Bonam]

Oh come on, really? There are plenty of non-religious theists. Deists and Pantheists are non-religious theists and they certainly exist. Thomas Jefferson and Isaac Newton are examples of non-religious theists. And many non-religious arguments will justify their position with arguments like 'well something had to come before the big bang and create the universe, so god must exist.' Of course these arguments fly in the face of occum's razor, ignore the fact that space & time and therefore causality came before the big bang, the fact that the big bang theory is still under some dispute, and just lead to the question of 'well who created god, and if god doesn't need a creator then why does the universe.'

But to say that non-religious theists don't exist... I just cannot agree with that position.

Pantheism is most certainly a religious belief system, not an irreligious one. Deism is less clearly so, but it is still more than simply the belief that a higher power exists. Specifically, deism ascribes the creation of the universe and the creation of human intelligence to this higher power, both religious notions. Deists themselves did not see themselves as irreligious, but rather as proponents of or seekers of the true, rational, religion.

The confusion here may be between the notion of an institutionalized religion, and a religious belief system. One can have a religious belief system without being a member of an institutionalized religion. Pantheism and Deism are not institutions, but they are still religious belief systems.

You could be right, but for now I'll stand by my statement that people that are simply theists, that is, believe in the existence of a higher power, but no more than that (do not ascribe any specific traits or feats to this power, do not base any aspects of how they live their lives based on the belief that this higher power exists, etc), are, if not totally non-existent, then at least exceedingly rare.

Interesting. Unrelated but may I ask what is your position on circumcision?

My understanding is that correctly performed male circumcision is not generally a harmful practice and some studies have shown it to be beneficial for health. In fact, I understand a large fraction of males in North America are circumcised, regardless of not being members of religions that require circumcision. If it is not harmful, I think it falls into the prerogative of what parents can do with their children. If it is shown to be harmful, then it should be disallowed. Female circumcision (i.e. female genital mutilation) has of course been clearly shown to be harmful and should not be permitted.

[-1=e^ipi]

Pantheism is most certainly a religious belief system, not an irreligious one. Deism is less clearly so, but it is still more than simply the belief that a higher power exists. Specifically, deism ascribes the creation of the universe and the creation of human intelligence to this higher power, both religious notions. Deists themselves did not see themselves as irreligious, but rather as proponents of or seekers of the true, rational, religion.

I guess I should have said that some forms of pantheism do not involve religion. Pantheism is simply the belief that universe = god. So if someone redefines the word god to mean universe, and they believe the universe exists, then they are pantheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

I was unaware that deism involved the belief that 'God gave humans the ability to reason', but I guess you are right about that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Features_of_deism

But I still feel there exist forms of deism that are non-religious. Perhaps we should distinguish between classical deism (which has religious traits) and modern deism, which is defined on the World Union of Deists website as:

'Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.'