Righ-tio, I'm currently doing logic at school, and pursuing it as an interest, so I thought I might briefly summarise some logical fallacies in regards to religious debate. If I miss any or haven't elaborated etc. please feel free to post.

Abusive ad hominem - Comes down to attacking the person on an unrelated matter to the debate at hand. That is - "you're fat, so your opinion on religion is worthless"

Circumstantial ad hominem - Like a more sophisticated version of abusive ad hominem. It basically sets out that because of one's circumstances (most commonly attributed with one's job/beliefs) that they're argument is worthless. For example, someone accusing a priest "Of Course you would hold the view that the bible is correct, you're a priest". Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, the important thing is that the position of the priest is being attacked rather than the argument itself.

Tu Quoque - This is basically arguing that because a person is being a hypocrite, their argument is invalid. Soooo, for example, a theist could claim that because their opponent in a debate has made an argument not based on scientific evidence, that one of their arguments not based on scientific evidence is just as valid (This isn't a great example - I'd appreciate an alternative)

Ad Vericundian - This fallacy is an 'appeal to wrong authority'. This is when one argues that a supposed expert at one thing is therefore an expert at other unrelated things. This one is commonly used - priests are almost always used in opposition to scientists when debating the logical and scientific worth of evolution for example.

Ad Misericordiam This fallacy is an 'appeal to pity'. Simply put, it tries to make an argument look stronger because of emotional attachment. e.g. Stop being so harsh, my relationship with god is very personal

Ad Populum An 'appeal to popular opinion'. As in, every one believes in this, therefore you should too

Ad BaculumAn 'appeal to force'. This is one of the main reasons behind allowing religion to exist. dun dun dun - If you don't believe in my religion/god, you will spend eternity rotting in hell

Ad IgnorantiumAnother signature one. Basically, because you cannot disprove something, it must be true. i.e. Because you cannot disprove God's existence, he must exist

Appeal to nature Because something is natural, it must be better. 'Gay people shouldn't be gay because this isn't what humans were designed to do, whether evolutionary or created.

Appeal to association This is where you pass on the attributes from one thing to the things which it is attributed to. For example, on Sapient's report on that CNN thing, he mentioned people who said that they had lost all respect for CNN. If they had lost all respect for CNN beccause they were dumbarses, didn't know the first thing about rational argument and because they all believed in god, then it would be fallacious. This is because the attributes of the people on the panel would be given to CNN. If however, they lost respect for CNN because they set up a stupid panel, then it is perfectly justifiable.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc This is where one assumes that because event A preceded event B, event A must have caused event B. For example, because someone praying preceded the survival of a friend, then that praying must have caused the survival of that friend.

Slippery Slope Event A might lead to Event B, Event B might lead to even C etc. right on down to Z. Then the individual claims that event A then must cause event Z. 'If we allow gay people to marry, family values will be lost, and then children will be without morality...and it won't be long before Nazis riding dinosaurs will rule the earth!(drawn together)

Petitio Principii Circular argument. This is where two unproven arguments use each other to be logical. The bible is true because god created it. God exists because the bible says so. God exists. (I'm sorry, but I can't help myself - ROFLMAO)

Fallacy of relativity This is when a relative term is used like an absolute term. So - theism requires absolute faith, atheism requires the tiniest of tiniest leaps of faith (not really though), therefore both atheism and theism are really the same

Fallacy of redefinition This is where one has a definition of a word that they use in argument, then that person realises their argument is in fact crap. I think hambydamnit put it well in this example

Theist: God is omnipotent. He can do anything.

Atheist: He obviously can't make a married bachelor, so he's not omnipotent.

Theist: He is. He can do anything logically possible.

Ok, there are probably a lot more which I have forgotten, but this is a basic list. Ask me if you want clarification etc.