Just as claiming something is a non sequitur (no second "e") doesn't make it so
You have yet to demonstrate any statement was a non sequitur so your comment is of no value.
Since you have a problem understanding logic
Will you please stop with the ad hominem attacks?
If there is one "pusher" of Mathematics that is anti-religion then it is a false statement to claim Mathematics is not anti-religion.
That would be a true statement. Your statement demonstrates that you do not fully understand logic. If one of a group has a trait - you can not claim nobody in the group has the trait. Simple logic.
Seems all of your spinning has left you very confused.
If one of a group has a trait - you can not claim nobody in the group has the trait. Simple logic.
Ah. I see what is happening here. We don't have a logic problem, we have a language problem. The statement "Evolution is anti-religion" we have to look closer at the term "Evolution." Your interpretation seems to be "At least one person in the Evolution community."
That is a rather odd and somewhat disengenuous interpretation. As I pointed out, this means that virtually ALL professions are anti-religion, since virtually all professions (short of the non-laity in religious organizations) will probably meet your "1 person" rule.
What this ends up doing is making the statement "Evolution is anti-religious" meaningless, since almost everything is anti-religious. Unless that is your point: that almost everything is anti-religious. But if that is your point and we are discussing TToE, it becomes moot, like saying "Evolutionists breathe air."
Seems all of your spinning has left you very confused.
I love it when someone who asks "Will you please stop with the ad hominem attacks?" ends their post with an ad hominem attack.
If you can dish it out, you can take it.