Atheists Who Argue Against Generalizing

[Mister Agenda]

Atheists who argue against generalizing with an epidemiologist
are as ignorant as a YEC arguing against a biologist.
When science conflicts with fight club logic,  guess who wins?

A generalization goes on a distribution curve which already  accounts for outliers.  
A NAXALT argument is derailing & defensive.  Outliers don't disprove the existence of the observable /measurable.  
IF you don't understand this^^,  then a learning curve is to be anticipated.  

Successful generalizations afford reliable predictions which affords odds ratios/risk factors.  Generalizing is a science for a reason.
That generalizations get exploited is a social services issue and not an epidemiologist's problem.  

I can say atheists argue against doing the science we need to do for offering theists our finest.  The trend is so predictable,  I can put my money where my mouth is and bet on the manner of the next 20 atheists responding.  

That atheists don't see the absurdity of arguing against generalizing w/ an epidemiologist speaks volumes.
We are mirroring theist ignorance in nature/not details
PLEASE NOTE:  instead of noting irrelevant, off topic , dodging responses for what they are,  they will be ignored.

Could you be more specific, please?