No, but then that's not the argument you were making, I mean do you think any group ( apart from maybe the secret brotherhood of masochists ) would be in favour of this?
That's demonstrably false, think agnostic vs atheist.
Not at all, there's a commonality among shared beliefs. I don't claim them to all be of the same mind, only that they share some common beliefs, this allows us to group them firstly as religious, secondly as Christian, and so on. I accept there is sub group followed by sub groups of sub groups, right down to the individual. At no point as my arguments against this bill relied on the"cartoonish hive mind" or whatever it was.
Your argument regards this whole "grouping" thing is contradictory and self defeating, I have explained why. Now that is a judgement of your argument, not your intelligence. Plenty of smart people make dumb arguments.
I think it's pretty obvious we are.
Please don't play the victim card, it's very unattractive and serves no real purpose.
If we boil it down to brass tacks, all we have here is difference of opinion as to what may constitute a group of people for the purposes of ascertaining whether or not that might then further constitute a minority ( or majority ) .I should probably take the time here to note that we haven't really discussed what a minority in this sense might actually be, although I do note that in arguing that the 30% who reported as non religious are not strictly a minority, we can comfortably agree that it is more about the level of representation within the community than it is raw percentage.
Where I take exception to your argument, as I have previously pointed out is your selective use of reason. You point out that there are differences between Christians, so we can't group them together, which logically is fair enough. However you then go on to make arguments that the same does not apply to those who report as non religious by attributing common positions, or socio economic commonalities,
here,
here, and
here. That is logically inconsistent. Transparently so. And that is without taking into account that those very same commonalities you point to are at best unsupportable, assumptions, and really for the most part demonstrably wrong.
As far as arguing in good faith goes, I most certainly have been. To be honest I feel that describing the pointing to the flaws in your logic, and the dismissing with ridicule your use of demonstrably unsupportable assumptions as bad faith arguments is a tad of a stretch, what is debate if not pointing out errors in logic and or fact?