Which is why I am careful to include the qualifier "in the strictest sense" which you summarily ignored despite my repetition of it. There's no short supply of people who have viewed deism as a religion and practice it as such not to mention entire sects of people who have done so throughout history. That doesn't mean religion is inherent to deism, or that subscription to the idea automatically makes it a religion. I'm surprised you didn't offer up Thomas Jefferson who while never identifying as deist most certainly embraced the idea along with many of the religious aspects of Christianity. There were also many other prominent deists like him who were in fact Christian deists who embraced religion rather than rejecting it.
The statement I quoted wasn't Merriam Webster's it was yours. I find it rather shocking you'd try to pass it off as theirs as if this wouldn't be immediately debunked.
Again you are slipping back into your misleading intellectual arguments also with the claim that because you can find one deist who merely mentioned the word religion in what was obviously a placeholder comparison to Christianity, I must be wrong and not agree with them. These bush-league banal tactics are utter bullshit an entertaining them further will only serve to grant them some level of acceptance which is completely undeserved. Unlike you, my assurance that I am done here means I'm done. Feel free to have the last word as such things seem to be vitally important to you, but as my interest in your discussion on this subject is done in this thread you can be also assured I'm not going to read it.
Cheers!
= new reply since forum marked as read