Comment on Saint Mary of Egypt....

No, I don't think I am reading into the comment something that is not there. The comment is quite unambiguous to me.  It is saying Mary most likely did not exist, therefore religion is inexplicable! I don't know any other way to read that comment. I see the comment as more of a Non Sequitur than a strawman. Note, for those who tend to be triggered by the religion discussion, the discussion is not about religion but about the strength or weakness of the argument being employed.  I have to say that because one other person went off the rails on another thread when I mentioned religion, when it was not even the center point of the discussion. 

You are adding the "therefore" where it doesn't exist. You are quite literally reading into the comment something that is not there. You can reply to the commenter and ask, "Please let me know if I am understating you correctly. Are you saying that because Mary most likely did not exist, religion is inexplicable?" If they respond affirmatively, then you can argue that they have committed a non sequitur , since that one claim being false does not make all of religion "inexplicable".

Does not an effect imply a cause?  That people believe in her is surely evidence that she existed?  Otherwise we would have an effect (people believing in someone) without a cause.  The options are.

1. She existed.

2. She was deliberately made up by someone.

[To Shawn]

So far you persist in posting religiously-themed claims you deceptively disguise as logical problems when the only problem is in your manipulation of those posts and fumbled (bad faith) reasoning in framing them.

For example, Headlining a post on Russell's Teapot Analology (sic) with Detect the fallacy is just a sophomoric, insincere, and specious move. Moreover, it's a loaded question as it presumes incorrectly that there is a logical fallacy to be detected when there clearly is not. You go on to include other diatribes about Russell being an atheist and his famous analogy being unpublished.  While true, they are entirely irrelevant to the question being posed. I found this to be suspect and I called you on it.

You further qualify that post by claiming it has nothing to do with religion, just as you have done here and no doubt will continue to do as the problem goes unrecognized.

The fact is they have everything to do with religious biases in spite of your insistence that they do not. However, the biases are not so much in the religious-themed posts but in your own inept interpretations of them.

As we have experienced with others who have suffered from a similar type of doctrinarian PTSD it is obvious you're dealing with a deeper cognitive bias with hopes that logic and reason can offer some resolution or personal relief. The desire to think more critically is actually quite admirable, and this site is an excellent resource for doing just that.

Unfortunately,  because of the Dunning-Kruger effect, you seem resistant to fully grasp that the fallacious reasoning is not in the problems you post but in your limitations in reasoning through them or listening to reason when generously proffered by more critically adept members. 

Case in point: Dr. Bo succinctly points out that the claim in your post is not a fallacy but an opinion. He goes on to demonstrate that your interpolation of "therefore" is the real problem, but rather than engage in good faith you put up a feeble defense that only highlights your inability or unwillingness to process the answer. What is obvious is that you are not posting questions in good faith, but only to confirm the conclusions you have previously arrived at. This is the epitome of fallacious reasoning and strikes me as wholly disingenuous and unworthy of the purposes of this forum.

I have no problem in examining, debating, or discussing the logical problems inherent in doctrinarian beliefs, but I do have a problem with those who pose them for ulterior motives or with no clue as to what they are actually talking about or ability to process the answer. 

As for inherent religious bias, I find the notion that just because a saint, god, or mythic figure did not exist makes religion inexplicable to be woefully ignorant. The truth is that out of the 12,000 gods, goddesses, and myths surrounding them throughout history the fact that the majority of them did not exist makes religion to be eminently more explicable.  

[To Mchasewalker]

I don't know whether Shawn is a theist themselves or not, but even if they are, it's nice to have different opinions. Besides, they might have had decent reasons to disagree with Dr Bo's statement at first.

There's no need to write these tangents every time Shawn makes a post on this forum!