Sorry Splendour, I'm a Deist. God doesn't have a book. But, thanks for playing.

^^^

Look, you guys can argue semantics all you want. For me, there are two catagories: Atheist, or Theist.

I'm a Theist.

Thank you jon. I'm a Deist, but since I'm also an agnostic, I will not rule out the fact that God COULD interfere, if he wishes. To think otherwise would just make me like Splendour.

And under all definitions of the word to boot.

asd, you're like an internal hemorrhoid. Irritating, and impossible to get rid of.

I have never denied being a theist. But you insist that I'm NOT a deist. I take issue with that. Because you say there are more than the two main catagories of belief, I guess.

Is there another catagory of knowledge? Other than Gnostic - Agnostic.

Jesus Christ, this is not that difficult. If you believe in a God that ever intervenes in the universe after he created it and set its laws in motion, then you are NOT a deist.

EDIT: I should clean up the language a bit. If you cannot make the following statement of "I believe in a God that does not intervene in the universe" then you cannot be a deist. If you try to claim 'agnosticism' on the subject of intervention, then you are automatically booted out of the deist camp (very similar to someone claiming "I don't know" to the question of "do you believe in a God". They are automatically booted out of the theist camp).

That's orthodox Deism. I belong to a more progressive sect.

I'm fine with you claiming a caveat to the traditional definition of deism...if you can provide a source.

Wiki is your friend:

That doesn't say what you think it says. I ask again, provide one source of deism that includes an intervening God.

Is there a difference between those that think god doesn't intervene, and those that think god hasn't intervened (yet)?

I initially thought someone that believes their god has not intervened in its creation YET is still a deist, and the moment they think there has been a supernatural event, they then become a theist. But perhaps the definition is more about whether they believe it could happen, rather than whether it has happened so far?

Yes, the first is a deist; the second, a theist. I'll elaborate below.

It's almost exactly this, but not quite. You can be a deist and believe in a God that could intervene, but just chooses not to.

As a quick addendum, if 'deist' can be used to describe a God who intervenes then the term becomes completely unnecessary. You are then defining the term not by category, but by degree. Deism would describe a lazy God only.

So if I believe there is a 60% chance that there is some form of god, am I an atheist or a theist? I sorta thought being agnostic is somewhere in between? I'm getting very confused at this point... Also is being a non-theist the same as being an atheist?