@josie Dogma based on blind faith and the claim that the believer has “revealed knowledge” that needs no evidentiary support, and in fact can’t even be subject to the test of evidence, is pretty hard to debate. You can supply evidence till hell freezes over, but the dogma is not subject to evidence, so it makes no difference how logical your argement is, A priori, you lose.
@poisonedantidote I don’t know the gentleman and his other work well enough to decide that issue, but it is off-topic of the OP, which only considers the posted link. I find no logical fallacies in his statements in the linked video. And to dismiss it without rebutting a single statement of his, but instead diving to an ad hominem attack is to rebut it as fallacious by resorting to a famous logical fallacy yourself.
@Dr_Lawrence That is true, and I believe it is the point that Mr. Condell was making in his video.
@lillycoyote The attempt failed. That does not mean that fundamentalist religious leaders will just give up, though. While it was radical Islamists that were pushing the idea at the UN, there have been powerfully politically connected religious right leaders here suggesting the same for US law. The only difference would be what constituted blasphemy. Drawings of Muhammad would be OK, AOK if they made light of him.
@wundayatta Would it be possible to identify fallacies without philosophy?
@Linda_Owl Thanks. I suspect if a parent let their children starve, and at trail claimed they were a loving parent, but the child had free will, that would not stand up as a defense to negligent homicide.