Few people are born Agnostics or Deists; most come to it, from other inherited religions they found lacking in some signifigant way. Thus a negative, originally motivates those seeking a more positive approach; that some find in Deism and/or Agnosticism. . . .

Few people are born Agnostics or Deists; most come to it, from other inherited religions they found lacking in some signifigant way. Thus a negative, originally motivates those seeking a more positive approach; that some find in Deism and/or Agnosticism. In both groups, some "worship at the alternative alters" of Science, Reason, ect. While there are "officially" no Deist or Agnostic "saints"; some historical individuals are quasi Deist or Agnostic, such semi-saints. Both Agnosticism and Deism are less "Faith" based than traditional religions; and more "Reason" based. But both traditional and "reason" (real or imagined) based religions, have their own biases. If you have a better description for use here; please suggest it? On first impression, it seems illogical, conflicting; to be both Agnostic and Deist at the same time. If the correct, or better standard for belief in God is "beyond a reasonable doubt"; then I'm Agnostic, because I've had reasonable doubts. If the correct, or more reasonable standard is "by the preponderance of the evidence"; then I am Deist, because I believe their is more evidence in quanity, that God exists, than that God does not exist. Also better quality evidence that God exists, than that God does not exist. I have the additional burden of bias to mentally and emotionally wrestle with: I prefer that God exist. Though that preferance does not cause God to either exist, or not exist.