Indeed. A belief, in and of itself, cannot be either logical or illogical; It can only be either true, false, or not provably one or the other. The argument that *supports* the belief may be either logical or illogical, and in the case that it is illogical one can promptly demonstrate this by offering one's own logical argument against it.

Far more commonly, the argument turns out to be not so much illogical as *incomplete*, or based on an axiom/predicate which is open to challenge. The challenge is then on to establish whether the gap can or cannot be filled with valid logical steps, either bridging the gap in the middle of the argument or providing a foundation built opun a mutially acceptable zet of axioms.

Statements that X is "illogical", without any logic presented to back them up, are empty and pointlessly confrontational. "That doesn't make sense to me - Can you explain the basis of it?" is fine. "That seems illogical to me, and here's why: [LOGICAL ARGUMENT REFUTING THE POINT BEING CHALLENGED]" is also fine.

"I can't see how you get from [X] to [Z]. Is it something like [q]? 'Cos if so, then I have to point out Zeebroglespurt's excellent logical refuation of [q] over at [URL]" would be fantastic. Especially if it gives me the chance to say "No, actually, the bit in the middle is [Y]" and have you go "[FOREHEAD SLAP] Of course! Now I see the light." =:o}