What is the logical fallacy called when?

I appreciate this question because I enjoy practicing logical fallacy identification, though I do not do it often enough.

- The first I see is "false premise." The premise that believers will be saved and go to heaven and non believers will burn in hell, is not factual. The argument is built on an unverifiable religious claim, it is a fantasy.

- Could argue it was a "thought-terminating cliche'" this statement could easily be used to end a debate, and is clearly a religious biased cliche'.

- "Appeal to fear", hell is scary so you should be a believer or else

- "Wishful thinking" this is how the believers wishes the world would work

- "Appeal to tradition" this is how we have always believed

- "Argumentum ad baculum" the threat of force, and hell is certainly coercive force.

- "Is-ought fallacy" this represents how the speaker thinks the world should work but is not necessarily how it works.

These are the ones I was able to look up. I believe they all came from the informal fallacy list. 

I see no fallacy. Although such a statement is not the most polite or effective approach, the statement is nevertheless true and accurate.

"tell's" = something belonging to a "tell"

What ARE you talking about??

As presented

it's not a logical fallacy.

Rather: it's a simple statement.

Most logical fallacies only appear in an argument

or in a response to an argument.

Some appear in questions.

A simple statement, one that does not draw any conclusion, is not a logical fallacy.

Examples (not logical fallacies)

- The Sun is yellow

- The Sun is purple

Now: that statement COULD be used AS a logical fallacy IF it is a response to an argument. HYPOTHETICAL example:

Atheist: presents some argument that concludes that the Christian God does not and cannot exist.

Christian responds: In the end, the believers will be saved and you will pay for your unbelief.

In this case

the Christian is ignoring the argument

and rather than attempting to counter the argument

is merely stating some belief.

This is an application of the "red herring" logical fallacy. The respondent, rather than pointing out some flaw in the argument, brings up an alternate (even though related) matter.

Simple example of the red herring fallacy.

Bill and Jill have an agreement to split rent equally.

Bill: If we divide the rent evenly, then (conclusion) we each pay $200.

Jill: But I bought the new couch.

If Jill had responded LOGICALLY, she should have gone with something like:

- OK, agreed, but don't forget that you have to pay for half the cost of the new couch.

I would think that would be an argument from ignorance since there is no support for the argument. It could even be that non-belief is valued over belief in our fake Gods/Goddesses, but we lack knowledge either way, thus ignorance.

Playing on fear.  Because that is the only way religion can get people to accept their irrational dogmas. 

I don't think it is a logical fallacy. There is no logical contradiction in that statement.

I'm not certain there is a name for that logical fallacy.

You failed or did not ever take a logic class did you!  Well I am smart enough to see that you do not understand logic. 

I think it's simply a false statement.  I do not recognize it as a formal logical fallacy.

Corrections welcome.