Most religion is faith-based, rather than logic-based. [View all]

That creates difficulties in discussions about religion. Since believers trust their faith and beliefs to be correct, logical arguments regarding religious belief are often seen as erroneous or mis-framed. Logic is not used in forming faith, so it appears to believers not to be necessary when defending that faith.

When logic is attempted by many religionists, it is typically based on an unproven premise that reflects their faith in the existence and primacy of the deities they worship. For non-religionists, this is the logical error, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (False in one thing, false in everything).

No logical discussion can take place, because one side believes and has faith in a premise that the other side thinks is false, since it lacks any evidence of being true.

And so we experience an impasse most of the time. All based on an opening premise that is seen as true, based on faith, by one side, and seen as false, based on a lack of evidence, by the other.

And yet we persist in attempts at discussion. Sometimes, we can discuss without rancor and name-calling. Other times, not so much. It all comes back to the original premise, though. If one says, "God exists and I have faith in and believe that," the other will say, "I cannot believe that any god exists, since there is no actual evidence. Your faith is inadequate as evidence."

And on and on the argument goes.