Now I would certainly agree with a lot of what you say - but the principle remains. I am afraid previous posters are right - you are setting yourself up as a "god", in the sense that you are the one defining what is good and what is bad. And like I say, I think your judgement is very sound - but it isn't perfect. No Human discernment is.
This is the faultline with deism. By definition, a deist is someone who believes in god, (or gods, or a supreme being) but has come to that belief by some form of rational or logical process of deduction and reasoning, as opposed to personal revelation. And this is all very well and good, except that it presupposes that all truth can be discerned solely by the powers of the mind. But there are lots of things that cannot be. Human Beings for example. We are creatures of emotion as well as logic. Or love. That is neither logical or rational, and nobody denies that exists.
The reverse does not hold true. All true Christians will have had that personal revelation experience (the exact nature of which varies quite considerably from person to person) - but that doesn't mean that many Christians don't think logically and rationally about their faith as well. I personally had to be intellectually convinced, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.
Can you see what I am getting at? I think you have thought very deeply on these things (and that's very good) but I don't think you are addressing all aspects of it.
“But what criteria are you judging those people and religious organisations on?”
On the criteria of basic decency and fairness, at least as I understand those concepts. Those concepts I define thusly:
Decency - behaving in a polite and respectful manner, until a valid reason not to - such as being confronted with impolite and/or disrespectful behavior - presents itself.
Fairness - conforming to a standard in which all parties involved are treated equally and with equitable intent, until such a time as it is shown that one of the parties involved should not be, due to their own untoward actions.
“I am afraid previous posters are right - you are setting yourself up as a “god”, in the sense that you are the one defining what is good and what is bad.”
Nonsense. Merely expressing my opinions as to what is or is not good human behavior in no way implies a deistic quality in me. That would be like saying that a Rabi is setting himself up to be a god for simply expressing his views along the same lines. The only difference between myself and a Rabi in this respect is that my criteria for defining good and bad are somewhat different than his.
“a deist is someone who believes in god, (or gods, or a supreme being) but has come to that belief by some form of rational or logical process of deduction and reasoning, as opposed to personal revelation. And this is all very well and good, except that it presupposes that all truth can be discerned solely by the powers of the mind.”
I presuppose no such thing. I actually do believe that many people experience a personal revelation not born entirely of reason which leads them to truth. I simply admit that I have yet to experience such myself. Please do not assume that because I’m not, say, a Christian, that I don’t understand or appreciate that such spiritual revelations as you’ve remarked upon exist.