Why not deism?

[Inqwizitor]

---

I'm not sure if I understand you here. Is this the "existence precedes essence" axiom? I think when we get down to what is metaphysically necessary, existence and essence must be the same thing.

---

I'm not familiar with the "existence precedes essence" axiom.  I certainly do think that existence precedes essence since essence is an epistemological term and existence is metaphysical.  I don't think that essences exist metaphysically, as essences are the product of abstraction.  
What I mean is that the concept "existence" is axiomatic.  That means it can't be broken down or analyzed.  It can't be rationally denied and it can't be explained because there's nothing more fundamental than existence.  To what would any more fundamental concept refer, if not to something that exists.  that's why the question "where did everything come from?" is nonsensical.  It seems to be the number one reason people propose the existence of gods, but it's a proposition that answers a question that does not exist or should be dismissed as improper for making use of stolen concepts.  Cause presupposes existence.

The question is nonsensical if it's meant like: where did existence per se come from? But it's not nonsensical if it's meant like: where did everything in existence come from? It's a rational search for something that simply exists, necessarily, without metaphysical contingency. Take our epistemology for the natural world: it is based on complex observations and looks for a simpler explanatory principle: how does this work, or in other words, how does this come to be? At some point, say, the four fundamental forces, our ability to observe and measure reality becomes irreducible, but we can still reason logically that there must be something even simpler than the physical phenomena we can know, or any physical phenomena that could logically exist.

---

Wrong. He straight up claimed that deism is be a type of atheism.

Yeah, in that case a deist is a kind of agnostic atheism too, since it rejects faith and any knowledge (epistemology) for the supernatural.

I was following the train of thought re: theism/atheism refers to faith or no faith in a divine revelation. The OP was a question about whether atheists here had considered deism, and treating them as distinct. Deism could be a third way that is neither theist nor atheist.