-Removed-I don't know, was your post a bit of "the seasoned cut and thrust of a little barbed humour and difference of opinion"?
If you won't explain your position, that's fine. I remain of the view that my post was essentially supporting your position, but you clearly are not interested in debating this.
5 edits
-Removed-Yes, and I agree with that statement.
As I said, in my statement "I was agreeing with you", which you objected to.
However, it is not possible to tell from your words alone whether or not you think there is a causal link between atheism and banking fraud.
I assumed that your words were intended to be sarcastic. In other words, you were saying 'Hell, if you want to say that correlation implies a casual link, and portray religion in a bad light, then I will give you an example of a correlation with atheists that doesn't look too good of you'. This makes sense as you are dismissing the OP as ridiculous, but I had to infer it. (Oh, that and the fact that you are very often sarcastic...)
If, on the other hand, you think that, because there is a correlation between atheism and banking fraud, this implies a causal link, I can't see why you would object to the OP highlighting the correlations it does.
-Removed-No. I am not trying to get you to say that atheism caused banking fraud.
I assumed that you did not think this, and still do. I don't think I could have been clearer that this is what I think your position must be.
I was simply speculating as to why you don't think I agree with your position.
I agreed with what you said. And I agreed with what you implied.
So I am still at a loss as to why you think otherwise.