> In answer to a question you didn't really ask: Yes, there are organised Deists. (Capital letter, please, as it's a religion, just like Buddhism. Sorry, pet peeve of mine.)

No it's not. It's a position on the nature of higher powers, just like theist or atheist. If there is also an organized religion called Deism, then it deserves a capital letter, but that is not what I was referring to. Just like there are tons of different theists (not to mention different polytheists, monotheists and pantheists), there are likely counltess types of deists. I suggest that any deist faith that decides to organize around a set of beliefs choose a name that is perhaps a little less confusing than "Deist," but it's their call. Don't get me started on the current use of the term "agnostic."

> One of the perennial arguments at the Deist forum where I lurk revolves around whether organisation is desirable, or even good.

[snip]

>
> The way I see it, there's certainly no harm in getting people together for discussion and support, but I start getting uncomfortable when people start talking about more formal rites, and definitely when people start throwing the word "church" around. I don't see the point in rejecting organised religion, only to turn around and organise all over again.

I don't understand what deists would get together to discuss. "Yeah, God's out there but he doesn't really care about us." I mean, unless you're a deist who believes in some sort of revelation from the creator of the universe, what will you have to discuss? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but I'm tired so I have no choice. See, this is why I don't want to capitalize the word deist, because it's wholly conceivable to me that deists exist who believe the Creator interferes with reality in a limited fashion or something. But the Enlightenment God-as-clockmaker brand of deists probably wouldn't really see much point in organizing.

Stephen