Big Jim,
What Deism does not have, of course, is observational consequences. Neither does it have any consequences for ethics or human behaviour generally. One can argue that by being a form of belief system that is unfalsifiable and without personal consequences, not only is Deism not a religion, it is essentially meaningless.
Atheism is a dead end philosophy (no pun intended). It may be logical in many respects but it is an incomplete philosophy. It has jumped to the conclusion that because God is currently absent from the scene (apparently) this means that he doesn't exist and never did.
One can have valid criticisms of atheism, but this isn't one of them. True, atheism is very incomplete, since it is just a rejection of all theistic belief systems in the world. One can be a Buddhist, Communist, Humanist or Satanist and also be an Atheist. So it is not a belief system, and neither is it a philosophy. It is merely a natural consequence of the philosophy of naturalism. I'd like to see you attempt to call naturalism a dead end.
One can launch the same sort of criticism as you do against the lack of belief in Santa Claus. Just because you don't see him, and because you now have different theories accounting for the fact you get presents at xmas day than some young children have, then "this means that he doesn't exist and never did". I am pretty convinced you don't really entertain the serious idea there is a Santa Claus. Well, God's existence has exactly the same status, were it not for people's nostalgia over old traditions.
So, yes, lack of positive evidence is normally the strongest evidence against existence we can possibly have!
Indeed, when it comes to the God of the three great theistic belief systems, we have better evidence against than mere lack of positive evidence. There are many arguments, as I am sure you are familiar with, that disproves such a deity, like the arguments from evil. And yes, I know it does not specifically target the absent "God" of the Deists.
Deism has a lot to offer as a belief system. It is the only belief system that is open to modification as it is based on observation and reason. It is therefore the most tolerant and rational way to believe in God. There is no book of legends, there is no Statement of Beliefs that one must subscribe to. The one requirement for being a Deist is to be willing to think for yourself. A strong atheist and a strong theist have two things in common they both think they are absolutely right and they both have closed minds.
This is the fallacy, the "the reasonable middle ground," that is, simply assuming that because you find some middle ground between two postulated extreme points, then this is somehow a more "reasonable" assumption.
Of course, in real life, either God exists or God does not exist. God does not 45% exist. That is absurd (for a given definition of God). So either the theist or the atheist are right, and the other wrong. No middle ground. Deism as you describe it is just an absent God. You postulate that God exists, but acknowledges that there is no evidence for it, and that this God means nothing whatsoever to anybody. This God is not interested in anyone or anything, and does not interfere in any human affairs. That, to me, is a non-existant God. Why you find it more emotionally satisfying to believe such a thing exists, than adopt the atheist position of assuming non-existence as a provisional default position, is pretty well beyond me, but to each his own. But when you claim it is a rational position, I will reject that as flat-out wrong. It is never rational to believe in something there is no evidence for. Period.
Bringing in a constructed position of "strong atheist" makes you argue against a strawman. People have provisional beliefs, strong or weak, whether they admit it or not. Many believe they hold strong theism (like many JWs), but when they later change their mind, they demonstrate that they did not.
Atheists I have met, read or heard about range from people who believe the god-question is actually meaningless and unworthy of any serious debate, to people who are almost certain there is no God. Absolutes are not very relevant to any discussion of knowledge. When you debate atheism, this is what you should discuss.
I will agree with you that Deism was great progress from superstitions of the past. Based on the mechanistic worldview of Newton, it made sense that the mechanical clockwork they thought the universe was had a Master Mechanic. As rational men, they also assumed this to be someone who had no interest in the affairs of humans, and needed or required no worship, doctrines or churches.
But with the enormously improved knowledge we have of the world after especially Darwin and Einstein, it's easy to see there is no need for any "Mechanic" (the universe is, after all, not as much like a clockwork as Newton thought it was).
The universe just is. It needed no "first mover". In fact a first mover is incompatible with some properties of the universe. So, since the God of the Deists was just the ultimate "God of the Gaps", and the gap became so much smaller with no sign of a God, the whole concept of a supernatural deity should be thrown on the scrap heap of history, along with other superstitions of the past. In fact, I am convinced that for human progress to continue into the next century, this will have to happen. Whether it does, I do not know. I think it depends a lot on what individuals like me and you do for themselves.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]