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?

Giving some sort of ad hoc percentage isn't really useful since you're basing it on, well, nothing. All you really have to do is answer the following question: "Do you believe in God." If your answer is anything other than yes, including I don't know, you're automatically an atheist.

EDIT: Allow me to elaborate on your 'percentage' question by giving an analogy (just in case you feel your numbers are somehow based on something). Let's say I had a bag with 100 marbles, some black, and some white. I randomly pull out a marble. Do you believe it is a white marble? Yes or no? What must the ratio of marbles be before you will answer yes? Is it a simple majority (51), or an overwhelming majority (85), or perhaps it has to be all of them (100).

No matter where on the spectrum you happen to lie, you still have the answer the question "Do I believe its a white marble." This is only question that matters. Now, note that if you answer "NO" you are not asserting the marble is black (positive atheism), but simply asserting you don't believe its white (negative atheism).

If you haven't already done so, please read the following.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...sitive_atheism

No, agnostic is not somewhere in between; it's another question altogether. It simply qualifies your position on 'knowledge' when referring to the subject of God. It's completely valid to be a:
- agnostic theist
- agnostic atheist
- gnostic theist
- gnostic atheist

And yes, a non-theist is the same as an atheist. Atheism is defined as 'without theism' after all.

So, I'm an agnostic theist, but I CAN'T be a Deist, because I believe God can (IF HE CHOOSES), interfere with creation.

Got it.

So, what am I, in your opinion?

You said it yourself.

Agreed. But I'm still a Deist. I don't agree with your rules. One sentence does not explain all of Deism.

You're right, one sentence does not explain all of deism. It does, however, explain a portion of it that is required to call oneself a deist. I have no idea why you perceive them to be "my" rules, they're not.

Oxford Dictionary:
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Merriam Webster:
a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

Why do you think you are both a deist and a theist?
What are your rules?

All deists are theists, when the definition of theist is used broadly. Of course, when defined more specifically deist and theist fall on equal footing.

I'm curious as well as to RoundGuy's rules for deism.

I think my beliefs as a Deist have been pretty clear and straightforward. You seem to think Deism can be explained in one sentence. Even your own dictionary quote says that the denial of interference didn't happen until the 18th Century. Did a REAL Deist exist before then? Not in your mind.

Can the beliefs of a Christian be explained on one sentence? Of course not. What Christian? Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminean, Baptist, Methodist, Reformed, Nazarene, 7th Day Advantist, Mormon, etc.?

If you wish to continue to deny I'm a Deist, so be it. You haven't given me any other options.

I suppose we could make up RoundDeism, if it would make you feel better.

Maybe I missed it. Please quote where you were clear and straightforward on the difference between deism and theism.

I never have. There is no difference. A Deist is a theist. Always. I've never NOT claimed to be a theist.

Then why the superfluous term?

Besides, if there is no difference, then not only are all deists, theists. But all theists are deists.

If A=B, then B=A

Point taken. Let me rephrase:

A Deist can never be an atheist, therefore a Deist must always be a theist.

We've already established that all deists fall under the broad definition of theism. What you haven't done is define how you differentiate between a deist and a non-deist (who believes in God).

No sh*t, sherlock. So why do you keep coming back to the broad definition? I have never tried to differentiate myself from a theist. But you keep wanting to go there. Whatever.

I have already quoted Wiki, which you blew off, that shows there are a wide range of views on the nature of God and God's relationship to the world. I've showed your own dictionary definition that say the "interference problem" is only since the 18th century.

I have explained my views. I think the burden of proof is now on you to show that a Deist cannot, ever, hold the beliefs I hold.

Yes, in this situation, I'm demanding you prove a negative. Otherwise, this discussion is really quite pointless.

Because when defined specifically 'deist' and 'theist' are different (and not one a mere subset of the other). You already implicitly admitted this in post #111.

You really have no idea of the history of the word deism, do you? The reason why there was a change in the 18th century was because "deism" and "theism" used to have the exact same meaning. This is no longer the case (as you have admitted) and they have been defined differently for the past couple hundred years.