Most frustrating Fallacies that Religious people bring up?

[DeistPaladin]

Not so much a fallacy... Then they go, "See! We don't really know anything, so I can just assert that my arguments are valid without actually justifying them. And furthermore, just inserting the unfalsifiable solution of god into the equation solves all of those pesky philosophical questions that you non-believers still have to struggle with."

Presuppositionalism hits not just one fallacy but just about every one.

Non-Sequitur Fallacy: translated to mean "it doesn't follow", this fallacy is where the conclusion has little or nothing to do with the evidence or reasoning offered. In this case how does the apologist get from "you don't know everything" to "therefore, Jesus"?

Bare Assertion Fallacy: Where no evidence is offered and the mere assertion is used to prove the assertion true. In this case, the presup apologist argues various assertions like "knowledge/morality comes from (Yahweh)" and "without (Yahweh), you can't know anything". As Stimbo would say, "citation needed".

Poisoning The Well Fallacy: This is where you try to destroy the credibility of the speaker rather than the argument itself. It's a variation on the Ad Hominem.

This is a popular fallacy for the breed of apologist I like to call "The Pompous Apologist" where, rather than defend his/her religious assertions (because they know they can't), this apologist does on the offensive and finds the weakest link in your chain of arguments and harps on it over and over again. No matter how much that one point may have been beside your main point, no matter how well your argument works even with that weak point discarded, and even if you retract that specific point, they will continue to harp on it repeatedly, implying that the rest of your argument must be flawed.

An example of this fallacy is "Issac Newton believed in alchemy. How crazy is that? Therefore, since he was such a crackpot, his discoveries in the laws of physics must be wrong."

"See, you don't know everything" is another example of poisoning the well.

The Argument from Incredulity Fallacy: Asserting that you can't comprehend how something would work and therefore it doesn't for that reason alone. In this case, "I can't imagine how the laws of logic would work without Yahweh".

The Special Pleading Fallacy: Asking for a lower standard of evidence for your favorite beliefs. In this case, why can't the presup argument be used for Allah, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

The Argument from Ignorance Fallacy: Filling in the blanks of our knowledge with your favorite god or whatever you want to invent. In this case, "we don't know what keeps the universe consistent so JesusDoesIt."

The GodVerbIt Fallacy: OK, this isn't an official fallacy but it should be. Saying "GodVerbIt" whether GodDidIt, GodWillsIt, GodIsIt, etc. doesn't answer anything so just because you can say "GodDidIt" doesn't mean you have an advantage.

Circular Reasoning Fallacy: Where the conclusion is the evidence offered to support the conclusion. In this case, the bare assertion "Yahweh accounts for reason" is supporting the conclusion "that's how we can reason Yahweh exists."

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque: This is translated as the "you too" fallacy, better known to every parent as "c'mon mom/dad, everyone does it". This is where you justify wrongdoing or irrationality on the basis that others do it as well. In this case "everyone has unfounded presuppositions and so does science so my presupposition that Yahweh exists is justified."

Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy: Where the burden of proof is moved to the skeptic instead of the believer, in this case "the skeptic can't account for...". As a skeptic, I don't HAVE to account for why the universe works the way it does, how it was created, where morals come from, etc. and my admission that "I don't know" is not license for the believer to go Argument from Ignorance and say "therefore Jesus".

False Equivalency Fallacy: Where one thing is asserted to be the same or comparable to another without justification. In this case, "you have faith in science and reason which is no different from my faith in the Bible".

Confusion of What Circular Reasoning Means: Claiming that reason is used to prove reason is "circular reasoning" which is a gross oversimplification of the process by which we choose skepticism and science over superstition. I can go into why skepticism is preferable to superstition and how it is not circular to reason this but that's a bit more involved and this post is already long enough.

There may be more fallacies this argument hits but that's enough for now.