You may not understand the distinction between a theist and a deist so before the argument against each position is offered I will briefly outline the main beliefs of both theism and deism.
We can begin with the more historically prevalent and popular of the viewpoints; the theist. The theist believes in one god, creator and ruler of the universe, and the belief comes without the rejection of revelation. The theist believes that this one god and creator intervenes in human affairs and is generally omnipresent, knows your thoughts and is a constant supervisor to you and everybody else.
On the other hand, well not quite the other hand but further up the arm resting upon the shoulder perhaps, is the deist. The deist believes that, behind the creation of the universe, of which they do not rebuke, an intelligent creator must be at hand. The believe that the world, life, the universe and all of the beautiful intricacies and complexities show that an intelligent creator exists. Basically, all this could not be an accident, is the viewpoint of the deist. They differ from theists in that they believe to be largely indifferent, suffice to say wholly indifferent, and they do not see the need for organized religion. And god separated the light from the dark…
Arguments against theism are somewhat varied and range from philosophy, science, archaeology, etc. To outline the main arguments against theism we would need to dedicate several books. Suffice to say, that one argument may be enough for today. Suffice to say, that the part of the globe that you were born on and into which society you were shot from the cannon of your mothers uterus into, would categorically determine your religion; suffice to say, this argument would be sufficient.
Deism is slightly less easy to refute, albeit still manageable. At the risk of conceding even in the slightest to deists, I give to them the view that this universe may be the product of an intelligent designer, but upon conceding this you must admit that you have a considerable amount of work to undertake if you are to provide, number one. Number two; if this is the intelligent design of some creator then it would mean a number of implications, the first being the extraordinary laziness and ineptitude of said creator, and the second being the qualities and virtues of the creator, most notably a patent for destruction, violence and downright, and i say it lightly, malevolence.
The final argument against deism, not exactly against it, more so in riposte, is the element of the indifferent god. If this god is indifferent and somewhat inactive then what is the need for it and why the need for any organized religion. If the conviction that there was an indifferent creator was to be proven it still would not necessitate the need for organized religion and we would, as a species, still be left to our own vices on earth.
Deists who, as it were, lounge on the proverbial fence between the religious and the non-religious, seem to me to be shamefully playing both sides of the fence for a penny. The laws of the universe work without the assumption of a creator. To me they seem to be biding time so that in case HE does exist ‘at least we didn’t side with the atheists’, a lazy argument. Dante dedicated the fiercest corner of his Inferno for the undecided.