I think it's fine to exclude the deists from the label Christian, but the Unitarians probably should be included, even though the vast majority of other Christians would consider them heretics.

Deism had no hierarchy to fix its principles, each adopted it their liking, and often blended it with Christian teachings. On one end of the scale, Washington could be ranked as a deist who attended church services, was a vestryman, quoted the Bible, commended religion, and prayed. He believed in public devotion and the moral precepts, but not the divinity of Jesus. At the other end stood Thomas Paine, who recorded his disdain for Christianity in The Age of Reason, written in James Monroe's parlor. In Paine's view, God never communicated with men, Christianity was a fable.

@curiousdannii, I actually think in Colonial times the line between Deists and Unitarians was quite thin. Both had more in common with each other than with Christianity. Both believed in God. Both attended Christian services. Both Valued Christian teachings. Neither believed in the trinity or the divinity of Jesus; the only difference was whether one believed God involved himself with human kind. Unitarians did, Deists generally did not.

Even if the Deists values Jesus teachings, they wouldn't have considered them (or any of the rest of the scriptures) inspired, would they? The unitarians would, and that's a major difference.

@JMS In Judaism, Jesus is just a normal person who tried to institute Judaic reforms. He's not considered a prophet.

@JAB, thank you for the correction I'll change that.

@curiousdannii, While I don't disagree with your point and understand how dangerous and even counter productive it can be to apply logic and reason to issues of faith; I would point out for interests sake that while Some Deist's and Unitarians value Jesus's teachings while dismissing his divinity. This places them further away from Christianity than Moslems which claim Jesus as a prophet of God while making no claim on the title of Christian.

@curiousdannii That's a good point, and fair distinction.

@curiousdannii: Also recall that there was a major paradigm shift starting in 1859, when Darwin published the "Origin of Species". Before that, there was really no satisfactory explanation for life other than it having been created by some deity or other. So the remote, non-interacting deity of Deism is about as close as you can get to modern-day agnosticism.

@jamesqf I do not know how life started so it must have been "created" by this "other thing" that I conveniently recall anytime I cannot explain something.

While it probably won't change the numbers much, it might be worth simplifying the definition of "Christian" to "one who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ", rather than "one who subscribes to the Nicene Creed". It's simpler and avoids the question of how to categorize those who affirm the divinity of Christ, while rejecting the Nicene Creed as theological fanfiction, decided by committee and enforced by violence. That's a can of worms best left unopened.

@thecarpy Yep, natural philosophy was big on consistency, and science thankfully inherited this focus. If you look around, and if all things that you can trace back to their beginning lead back to a creator, it's consistent to extrapolate that all the things you can't trace back that far will eventually also lead to a creator. Pretty reasonable, considering the context.

@Morgen My numbers are based on those who believe in Christ’s divinity. It’s the broader definition. I mention the Nicene Creed because that has been the standard test for most of history..

@thecarpy: But once life has started - "breathed into a few forms or into one" - everything that follows is explicable, which leads to the idea that the "breathing" might be as well. Whereas if you attribute it to god(s), you're stuck asking what created them, as e.g. Greek mythology had several generations of divinity before the familiar pantheon of Zeus &c.

Apologies for nit-picking, but do most Christians recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday? That doesn't quite line up with my experience.