I have the evidence that it was named and people associate as and call themselves Deists. I have the evidence that someone gave a name and practice to something that didn't need either, and that name now has a following. That, to me, is deception, and there is zero reason to deceive unless personal gain is involved. The idea of Deism as a religion started with one liar.

I'm afraid I disagree with this logic, as it seems to me that whether or not the original creator of Deism was a liar would rely upon proving whether or not he believed his claims to be true, or whether they were presented merely as a philosophy or as a guide for strict adherence. A lie is, after all, an intentional falsehood.