The Semantics and Cartography of Belief
Some random observations, entirely from my point of view (please keep the "entirely from my point of view" part of that in mind. I do NOT claim to speak for any believer other than myself):
Being a religious individual is not the equivalent of professing a specific religion. Nor is professing a faith the equivalent of professing any religious denomination of that faith.
Dismissing individual religious understandings as "cherry picking" is a cheap and comfortable way of writing off the variations in individuals' beliefs, interpretations, and understanding. But it shows a calculated impulse to equally disrespect individuals who choose internal loci of religious authority (small "a",) and those who profess adherence to external (small "a" ) authority, and then behave in ways antithetical to that authority. Or possibly it indicates a profound ignorance of the difference.
(And no, "God" is not a source of religious small "a" authority. Small "a" authority arises from human understanding and interpretation of Authority, the objective nature of which cannot be known any more than we can know anything else outside the ability of our bound-in-space-and-time perceptions to understand.)
I'd choose to believe the calculated impulse explanation, because I really don't see most who sling the "cherry picking" term around as though it is the ultimate rhetorical WMD as ignorant, not at all. Quite the reverse.
But just to put this out there, as it were:
Many religious individuals --even those who choose to nurture their faith in the context of a specific religion, denomination, or doctrine-- regard the "practice" of religion not as "adherence to a catechism" or "repetition of ritual," but as the ongoing search for deeper meaning and more thorough self-transformation, based on an ever-maturing understanding of the scriptures and traditions of their faith. An analogy might be the process of slowly and mindfully uncovering, piece by piece, a very individual "map" of personal faith.
People on this kind of spiritual journey tend, in my experience, to be concerned with their own self-transformation rather than with demanding that others conform to their individual interpretations of any specific doctrine or scripture.
The vast majority of believers of all types benefit from the weight of invisible and often unacknowledged privilege that comes with being a believer in a poligionist environment. But those focused on the process of uncovering an individual spiritual "map" may also freely acknowledge that every individual's "map" will differ, and some "maps" may even chart territory that does not include any belief in the divine at all.
In other words, they are the believers most likely to acknowledge the equal precedence and validity of non-belief as a foundation for the individual journey through life.
I've seen far more believers of this type in the Religion Group than believers of the "My small "a" religious authority says THIS and therefore THIS is right and everything else is wrong and that settles it" variety. (In fact, with the exception of the odd troll, I haven't seen any of the narrow, doctrinaire, my-way-in-excruciating-detail-or-to-hell-with-you variety of believers here.)
This is not to say that believers who are testing and uncovering their personal spiritual maps cannot be offensive, bigoted, and presumptuous with respect to non-believers. Not by a long chalk. And we need to be called on it, called out, and taken to task each and every time an unthinking assumption or a mindless acceptance of privilege comes out here.
It may be more effective if, in doing so, atheists and other non-believers do not employ the same rhetorical arsenal they might apply to the narrow, doctrinaire, literalist fundamentalist variety of believer. That makes it awfully easy for a thoughtful believer to write off valid criticism. You clearly think I'm something I'm not, therefore you are criticizing what you think I am or dismiss me as, rather than what is actually me.
Of course, none of this applies to the "All believers are irrational puppets of subnormal intelligence" point of view. Which, to be honest, I have not seen much here either, except for the odd troll.
diffidently,
Bright
= new reply since forum marked as read
K&R
I have wanted to point that out for a while now. 
not long ago, about our "unique paths" being somewhat analogous to "paths" of a photon in Feynman diagrams. Yeah, my path seems to be very much into holographic ideas/analogies... 
lives around narrow, doctrinaire, literalist fundamentalist believers. At least, I do, and for extra bonus fun, my family falls in that category as well.
It may not be correct to assume that a plurality of believers on DU would also share this belief structure, but it does take a conscious step back to remember this, which can be difficult when those on an individual spiritual journey sometimes take personal offense at non-believers' protest of fundamentalist nonsense. Tensions are also running high right now, with the holidays coming up and many are warily anticipating family gatherings with fundies. DU3 also seems to be permitting more incivility that did its predecessor, and that is incredibly disheartening (that so many recced the "Hitch was worse than KJI" thread in GD is just ridiculous). These aren't excuses, just explanations, and yes, we should do better.
Additionally, I think both sides can get caught up in terminology, one insisting that a definition does not apply to them, and the other insisting that it does (aside from "cherry-picking", I'm remembering the dictionary wars wherein many insisted that "atheist" means "believes no gods can possibly exist".) We would all do better to get past the words themselves, to learn what we actually believe and practice. (Then to continue with honest disagreement/criticism from there if it is warranted. )