A pantheistic argument.

[Edwardo Piet]

You do realize that the words "god" and "deity" are synonyms yes?

Yes, but synonyms don't necessarily have identical meaning, they can have similar meaning. It was my understanding that merely one definition of god is "deity", maybe I was wrong there but it doesn't change my point. If god means the same thing as deity then I guess believing god is the universe would equate to believing god is a deity. I thought, you see, that "deity" is "god" in the sense of "supernatural being, especially a creator of the universe" - and if "deity" means that then it's not the same as "god" because some forms of pantheism define "god" as "the universe" and the universe is not a deity in the sense of a supernatural being.

You seem to be hung up on how you define a god, but so long as you are calling it such, it is theism (in it's broadest sense).

No, it's not about what label we choose it's about what we actually believe. If I call myself an atheist that wouldn't make me one if I believed in god. My point is that when I'm a pantheist I believe in the exact same thing as when I'm an atheist. My beliefs are identical. In both cases I am merely believing in the universe. The fact that I label the universe "god" in one case and don't in another makes no difference if I'm actually believing in the exact same thing. If there is no difference in the actual belief then they can't be different because the very definition of the difference between theism and atheism is completely dependent upon the difference in belief. If there is no difference in belief therefore, there is no difference. The label of "atheism" and "theism" is different if you name them that way, but what they actually are and what they actually refer to is no different if all the differences that their very definition is dependent upon is completely removed.

If someone defines Jesus Christ as "a chicken" and they believe in chickens that doesn't make them a christian if non-Christians also believe in chickens. If non-Christians also believe in chickens, if Jesus is a chicken and if Christians' belief in Christianity therefore depends on believing in that definition of Jesus being "a chicken" then how are Christians any more Christian than non-Christians, if the very definition of Christianity (and therefore also non-Christianity) both depend upon there being a difference of belief and/or non-belief between the two? It's not about the label, it's about the belief. If the belief is the same, it's the same thing. The label doesn't change what you believe exists. You're not an atheist because you choose to label yourself that way, you're an atheist because of what you don't or do believe. If all the atheists on these forums started defining "god" as "a carrot" it wouldn't actually change their atheism into theism simply because they believed in carrots and they were then defining god as "a carrot", because it wouldn't actually change their belief/non-belief (in both cases they are merely believing in carrots) and the very definition of atheism is about belief/non-belief. Atheists cannot change from atheists to theists without changing what they actually don't or do believe.

Theists, for the same reasons, are not theists because they choose to label themselves that way either, they're theists because of what they actually believe exists.

"If god is a deity" is nonsensical.

If every single definition of "god" is "deity" including the pantheistic definition of god being "the universe", then yes.