Often times you hear the unbelieving group toss around the word "religion" as to include just about anything one can think of—and it doesn't really matter what. So long as one who claims to be a believer committed an act that is either socially unacceptable or merely disliked by the individual condemning religion, then, rather than just debunking the person specifically, they replace the person with the word "religion." This is known as hasty generalization. This could be explained if the reason why they do this were because, for example, the position they (the unbeliever or condemner) adhere to has no mainstream or explicit sects—something wholly specific to the position itself; therefore they convert something specific into something general.
But another reason why they do this could be because it would be easier to accomplish their overall goal: getting rid of religion entirely. While it should be obvious that turning something specific in to something general (for whatever the reason) is fallacious, the point of this writing is to show or at least provide food for thought for the unbeliever on why their use of the word "religion" in this case is fallacious and what they can do about it. Given the topic, if someone claims to be a believer of a certain religion, is everything they do dependent on their religion or something that their religion promotes or advocates? Even if it is, you still can't use the word "religion," as that is still committing the fallacy of turning something specific into something general.
To expound, if someone V claims that they belong to religion X and you see them commit Y, you cannot say that religion is evil or foolish just because person V committed Y. If, however, religion X promotes or advocates Y and Y is obviously foolish, then you can say that X (not religion, since "religion" encompasses more than just X) is foolish because it advocates Y. But if Y was V's own doing (where even X condemns Y), then you cannot say that religon or X is foolish because V did Y. Nevertheless, this is assuming that you know how to judge things properly. But if one required being told all of this, it may be safe to assume that they did not know how to judge things properly.