Its reception was "generic" to you because you can't read well, so I'll afford you the favour of breaking it down.
I never said no one benefited from it, so giving me one example adds nothing to your point nor takes away anything from mine.
A. I specifically asked for you to establish merit to your point. Your point wasn't "people adopting religion can conquer demons". I would not have even retorted to that.
B. You suggested they usually do, which if true, would empower religion as a tool to use.
What's a difference in the core of it? A doesn't leave us deciding which intervention would prove most successful, out of the many.
B, because you asserted it usually works, would leave us prioritizing it over the other possible ones.
I shouldn't have to explain this; you're a big boy. Even if you eliminate the underlying differences, I asked for merit, which isn't generic. It requires someone adding base to their stock.
I'm so sorry you're too feeble-minded to arrive without me. Who's kidding, though? You're probably still far.
If you've read the above and actually comprehended it and STILL think I was only asking for an example, you're infantile in more ways than one.
