Fair enough:

A "strawman" is a misrepresentation of one position by replacing it with another one that's much easier to defeat. My position is the following:

An "appeal to popularity" is a specific informal logical fallacy that's tied to believing a statement is true based on other people believing it's true. You've literally taken my statement and replaced it with a direct logical fallacy. My statement has nothing to do with the truth value of any particular statement, but rather that popular statements win contests of popularity. My statement is basically true by definition, and is hence a non-evidentiary claim. So by replacing my true claim about popular statements with an incorrect representation of my position (that I am claiming something to be true based on popularity), you have created a strawman.

No, this is simply wrong. A false dichotomy is an either-or statement that denies the possibility of other positions. You've presented something to be an exhaustive two item list when there are clearly other possibilities.

An ad hominem is not an insult. Ad hominem is the rejection of a specific argument based on the person making the argument as opposed to the merits of the argument itself. I've challenged your various challenges to my position by identifying specific flaws.

And then I insulted you because you appear to me to be that bad at making and understanding basic argument forms, which makes me doubt your intellectual capacity.

You're the one who has chosen this route.

I challenge your concept of "political religiosity" as being ill-defined. Would you like to elaborate on that in a meaningful way, or will you continue demonstrating the limitations of the processing power of your brain?

That's a lot of noise for your misperception of a strawman and a false dichotomy. It's fine if you don't want to answer the question. It is a little begged.

Prejudicial religious beliefs are still way more interesting and yes those have a way of being made to have popular appeal, complete with deniability of various plausibility. Historically, with atheists, little deniability was needed, just call them god-less somethings or another and they are out.

It's with great amusement that you continue to demonstrate incompetence. You have an opportunity to present information to prove me wrong about those terms, but I doubt you will take it because you know you will be unsuccessful.

I'm about 80% sure you're not entirely clear on what question-begging is based on the available information.

If you knew what a false dichotomy is, you would know why I didn't answer it. Answering a false dichotomy acquiesces to the error.

My statement only applies to the existence of popularity and has no bearing on the reasons behind the popularity. I've also openly acknowledged that all humans are subject to bias, and find this to be completely unproblematic for my position.

Right. I don't pretend that biases don't exist. What's your point? That biases exist? I've already granted that.

So you strawmanned yourself to your own amusement. Lol that's funny, but has little to do with me. I'm aiming for the topic, not you.

Still there nothing inherently false about religious prejudice relating with appeals to popularity. It's just a matter of how the prejudice is expressed at various level of popularity. When unpopular, A weak prejudice is in danger out in the open. A strong prejudice may try every trick in the book to survive. A prejudice from a place of authority has some different appeals than a prejudice with little social power.

I do plenty for my own amusement. Nevertheless, you've still yet to cogently put forth anything relevant to my statements.

I like how you've made a bunch of statements and ran them together as if that's coherent. And how none if it actually addresses any comments I've made.

Again, I welcome you to elaborate on your concept of "political religiosity" and demonstrate something meaningful about it. I'm fairly confident that anything you say is going to be so generally true of general biases as to provide no useful insight into anything.

But you have a chance to prove me wrong.

Political religiosity is an odd turn of phrase to get stumped upon. I doubt presupposing is as helpful as analyzing the topic and thread for context.

I have to wonder if minimizing and avoiding discussion about Donald Trump and prejudicial religious beliefs is cause for all the extra noise. Perhaps it's difficult to talk about openly while certain religious-based prejudices have lost power and grown less popular? Prejudice can be quite a challenge and hard problem.

Moral exceptional ism. Here are two words worth talking about. A goal of political religiosity is to codify particular religious moral exceptions. The exceptions which form basis for prejudices.

Trump doesn't seem to be running on anything closely like that and opposes Ted Cruz who did (does) seem to run on a morally exceptional religious political plank.

My only response at this point is that this is barely coherent. If you want to try again, that's fine. But if you don't, that's also fine.

Strawman and false dilemma. Avoidance strategies.

Why not discuss religious prejudices openly, perhaps with out prejudice and avoidance.
Why disrupt discussion about religious prejudices? Feigning miscomprehension is not a very well-considered approach. It quacks like a duck anyway.

What about it do you want to discuss? The statements I quoted are not coherent enough to start a discussion. Consider, for example, this statement:

You've once again invoked this phrase that you've "stumped" upon. But you have yet to really describe it. Why is this a goal of political religiosity? What religious moral "exceptions" are you saying are being codified?

You've tried to tie it to "[American] moral exceptionalism" but I will await for you to actually describe what you think that is before deciding whether you've made a successful observation. (There are now two terms that you're using, one of which you've just made up and the other that is an understood concept in the literature but not necessarily by you. In particular, I note that "exceptionalism" is not about making "exceptions." But you knew that, right? Or maybe not.)

I maintain that you're mostly incoherent so far.

You do characterize the ideas that way, but with such a jaded bias persistently showing it not worthwhile to correct you further. It's now obvious you didn't even read the link with background on moral exceptionalism. So I'm content letting the topic pass for now due to lack of interested participants.