Comment about False Equivalence definition

I have to think about this. Fallacies focus on arguments... perhaps it would be more clear to write something such as to opposing things in argument context. I am okay with the shared characteristic. For example, positive and negative can be completely opposing, but share the characteristic of "electrical charge." Satan and God can be completely opposing, but share the characteristic of "supernatural being" (or mythical character, depending on one's beliefs). One could quibble about what "completely" means, I guess.

Well, since the definition starts with the word "argument" I believe it would be unnecessary to restate the "argument context" part. Also, I don't get why the two things compared must be opposing.  They have differences but that doesn't necessarilly make them opposing. And the argument doesn't necessarily have to be a response to another argument, hence the opposition. It could just be an initiating claim. My take would be just "an argument or claim in which two things appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they're not" . 

I think those atheists might be comparing the truth value of religious texts to fairy tales and folklore (in that they're both narratives created by society, and aren't actual reflections of the workings or history of the natural world).

If someone suggested that the Torah and New Testament have the same *place* in society as Lord of the Rings, then they'd need to clarify whether they were being normative or descriptive. If the former, it's just an opinion. If the latter, I agree this would not be accurate (Lord of the Rings is universally acknowledged as fiction; the Torah and New Testament are taken seriously as religious texts and their teachings are adhered to by millions).