Seriously do you want to be labeled under any of these? There are good theories to all of them, but in the end none of them work in and of themselves. All of them have fatal flaws.

Not sure what you mean. I don't any of them have fatal flaws, they just need to be balanced and put into the right context. Hedonism is wonderfull, if you recognize that material wealth and food/drink don't really give you happiness/pleasure.

Ehhh.

Nihilism does little other then put the world in perspective. Deism does little(In my opinion) other then cause problems and serve as a crutch to those incapable or unwilling to see the world infront of them.

Apathy is bad, m'kay?

*shrug*

EDIT: Just to add a bit to my post... Events may occur when it might be better to not do anything rather than doing something that worsens the said situation.

Damn, people have been really scarred by Christianity, haven't they?

If deism is a crutch for people who can't handle what is infront of them, then the word deism needs to be redifined. Because from my perspective, deism allows you to properly unify and see what is in front of you in context, giving you a more clear picture.

Deism presents a clearly controversial (and from my POV clearly false but there you go) statement as its only real premise.
Conversely I'm not sure how you'd go about refuting the main principles of nihilism. Even if you believed God set out rules that really matter in some way vis. morality (no false idols!) at the end of the day they're still arbitrary on some level, despite the fact you should follow them because if you do various things will be true like that you live a more fulfilled life, go to heaven, make other people happy which may be in your interests as you're deciding what to do, etc. etc.

So as perspectives that help the world make sense one seems much more useful than the other. That said, the "crutch" thing is more of a common circumstancial fact of deism than inherent to it.

Would you say that the rules given in an operating manual for a product written by it's manufacturer are arbitrary?

Hm. Ok, I can see what you're getting at and maybe there is a small distinction, but at the end of the day, yes. It's tricky because one tends to conflate meaning with consequences. If I kick my TV despite what the instruction manual tells me, I'll probably end up with a result I didn't want, but nothing about kicking it is inherently "good" or "bad" beyond what I get out of it. If I wanted a working TV, it was a bad move, but that's a meaning I applied. If I wanted some kind of insurance scam, then the meaning I apply to it makes it "good" for me. The instruction manual just outlines that fact.

That just means that the terms "good" and "bad" are arbitrary. Not that the information in the book is arbitrary.

The book is probably wrong, because everyone knows that the best way to fix a fuzzy signal is with a sharp rap to the top of the TV, even though the book expressly says not to. The manual is presumably there so that one can better enjoy the TV, and a fuzzy signal interferes with the proper enjoyment of a TV, much like stoning horny teenagers does not do a ton of good for society.

Of course, one has to question if the shiny rock by the river banks was manufactured at all. An atheist says that the shiny rock was clearly polished by the river, but the deists and theists make bizarre claims to back up the notion that, in fact, that rock is just too gosh-darn shiny and too far away from the water line to have been polished by silt. After the atheist throws up his hands and walks away from the debate on the shininess of said rock, the deist and theist then start talking about where that rock even came from. The deist says that the rock was cast into the river by a bored god who wanted to see if he could skip it across the water. The fact that the rock got shiny was irrelevant to why the rock is there to be admired. The theist, on the other hand, notes that a superbly polished rock has advantages for the people who find the rock, and the gods who throw rocks are always looking ahead to how to help people. Why, this polished rock is smoother than other rocks, which makes it more aerodynamic and all that much better for slinging at giants or killing horny teenagers, and is thus proof of a loving and just god.

Deism isn't essentially self-defeating at all. For conceptions of god that tend towards logical necessity a la Thomas Aquinas, deism is almost a given. For conceptions of god that tend towards willful personalities a la Miguel de Unamuno, then deism is a bit silly.

But information is distinct from meaning. You're now using information to mean simple facts about the universe. That's fine. But it doesn't mean anything has any meaning except that which we give it subjectively.

huh what? Who is talking about meaning?

You Scored as Existentialism
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” “It is up to you to give a meaning.” --Jean-Paul Sartre
“It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.” --Blaise Pascal

Existentialism
95%
Utilitarianism
70%
Justice (Fairness)
70%
Hedonism
55%
Apathy
30%
Kantianism
30%
Nihilism
25%
Strong Egoism
20%
Divine Command
0%

Existentialism 90%
Hedonism 80%
Nihilism 60%
Strong Egoism 60%
Apathy 45%
Justice (Fairness) 40%
Utilitarianism 35%