Creationists love to equivocate with "God" and "god"
It always gets on my nerves how creationists equivocate between "god" (in a general sense) and "God" (as in the God of the Bible).
Here are some great examples of this:
1. "You can't prove that there is not a god, therefore it's perfectly rational to believe in God". - This would be like saying "you can't prove that aliens don't exist, therefore it's rational for me to believe that Mr. Spock is a real life alien".
2. "Atheists don't believe in a god because they just don't want to accept the fact that God will send them to hell when they die". - There's no logical reason to believe that even if there is "a god" in a general sense, that he is the God of the Bible, or will send people to hell just for not believing that he exists, etc. Here's another analogy: "You know there is a god, you just don't want to admit it because you know that Zeus will strike you down with lightning for not believing in him".
Also, (this isn't really an equivocation fallacy, since in this case they are talking specifically about Yahweh) I love how creationtards argue that because the existence of God (of the Bible) would be a bad thing for atheists, that this means their reason for not believing in him are based just on emotion (ex. wanting to avoid hell). It would be like me saying "You know Godzilla is real, you just don't want him to be real because you know that he'll destroy your town if he is". Though it's really the opposite - theists use these logical fallacies because they know that their beliefs are based just on emotion, so they know they can't win on a fair playing field where they're expected to justify their beliefs with facts. Logical fallacies are the only way they can even keep a "debate" going for more than 2 minutes without just having to admit defeat.
Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical