An example of folks doing this is Jehovah's Witnesses teaching and arguing that hell is a pagan concept.
Is hell being a pagan concept indicative of it's truth or falsehood? I'm not sure what saying hell is a pagan concept is supposed to prove about it's being true or false- unless we're to accept that pagans can't say anything true.
This raises the question of rather a concept or belief being held by a specific group or ideology is enough to make it wrong. Is something in fact wrong simply because a pagan said it? A Muslim said it? A Christian said it? An atheist said it?
A question similar to the one you're asking is, "Is it logical to take into account the
authority of someone in evaluating the truth or falsity of a statement made by them?"
Put differently, is it logically permissible to reason that "because Jones is a physicist Jones knows whether or not electrons are fundamental units of matter."
Almost all logicians agree that an appeal to authority is sometimes logically permissible in inductive logic, but never in deductive logic.
So, for instance:
- Inductively speaking, it would be logically permissible to reason, "Sunstone is an expert on fly poop, Sunstone says fly poop is flammable, therefore fly poop is most likely flammable."
- Inductively speaking, it would be logically permissible to reason, "Sunstone is always or almost always wrong about math, Sunstone says 7 is the product of 3 and 10, therefore 7 most likely is NOT the product of 3 and 10.
- Inductively speaking, it would be logically permissible to reason, "Sunstone's AM Radio rants are always or almost always factually wrong, Sunstone ranted last week that all women secretly want to live in his harem, therefore it is most likely wrong that all women secretly want to live in Sunstone's harem.
- Inductively speaking, it would be logically permissible to reason, "All of Sunstone's closest friends are always or almost always wrong about physics, Jones is a close friend of Sunstone's, Jones says electrons are made of fly poop, Jones is probably wrong about electrons being made of fly poop.
So, yes, there are times when it is inductively permissible to reason that "Jones belongs to group x, people who belong to group x are usually wrong about y, therefore Jones is most likely wrong about y."
But it is never deductively permissible to reason that way.
For the reasons why it is sometimes permissible in inductive logic, but never in deductive, to make an appeal to authority, see this guest post by the renown logician, Boyd Stace-Walters, on my blog:
When Logic Breaks Bad: Three Shocking Errors that Turn an Appeal to Authority into a Depraved Fallacy! (The article starts off slowly -- if you don't share my sense of humor, skip down a few paragraphs and begin there).
https://cafephilos.blog/2017/03/19/...-appeal-to-authority-into-a-depraved-fallacy/