Quote:
|
Wrong again. I never made that claim. Not surprising, given your track record of reading difficulties.
|
You claimed that the best US presidents were the least religious, and of those that were religious, they succeeded in spite of their religion (which, as I have already noted, is an asinine position to take because it isn't provable or disprovable and has no value in discourse). To demonstrate that the best US presidents were the least religious, you attempted to claim that 3 of the top 4 presidents on that list were deists (which you haven't even attempted to support with facts). You failed to note that being a deist, assuming they were deists, does not say ANYTHING about whether they were religious. So not only did you fail to support your claim, even if you had supported your claim, it wouldn't have been pertinent to the discussion.
Then you omitted the fact that your statement was a comparative statement (in order to be the "least" religious, you would have to demonstrate that they were less religious than all other presidents- something that cannot possibly be demonstrated by a claim that 3 of the top 4 were deists).
Finally, with regard to the one US president who you did not claim was a deist (FDR), you didn't even attempt to show how he succeeded as president IN SPITE OF his religion (and good luck trying to show that).
In short, you made two baseless claims, attempted to support such baseless claims with nothing more than your own assertions, failed to note that even if your assertions were true, it wouldn't be supporting evidence of your actual arguments, and then declared victory and walked away.
Bravo. I knew you would Woot it up after all.