I don't care what rules you follow Tec. You are setting up a stawman argument. I have made this point before, and I will make it again.
I do distinguish between religious types. Fundies do the most damage and are frankly the most dangerous.
What makes a fundie? Well first they must believe in a god. Very first step. How can they believe in a god? They must accept something without proof. They must suspend rigorous critical thinking. They must change their standards of evidence in order to believe in a god. You have said as much. You have said that what you consider to be evidence may not hold up in court and certainly does not hold up in science. So the standards are lowered. Maybe you only do this when it comes to god belief---but you have done it. Now your personality and circumstances keep you from being a fundie right now.
But where does it stop? That is an individual thing. If you are able to lower your standards for evidence to believe in a god, others will lower them even more and believe that they should hate homosexuals. They become so confused when what they consider to be evidence is so loosely defined, they can even learn to dismiss actual evidence--evolution is made up by scientists. When evidence becomes so loose weave it affects many other areas. When people decide willy nilly what is evidence, and make it a completely subjective word, nothing really prevents the from getting lost in the murkey waters. They are not grounded. Lowering your critical thinking skills for anything is not healthy.
So now we have two separate arguments. 1. Some religion is dangerous and hurtful. 2. Belief in itself allows such religion to exist because it encourages people to rewrite reality. One does not exist without the other. And even if believers don't do hurtful things, they have lowered their standards for evidence.
Open the jar on belief without evidence, or with faulty evidence, and you let out the full spectrum. Because these people are being encouraged to lower their critical thinking skills like it's a good thing, and therefore, are losing a layer of protection against extremism. Tell a person it is okay to use flawed evidence to support a belief in a god, and then try to tell the same people that it is not okay to use flawed evidence to believe in a talking snake and six creation days. Why good for one half and not the other?