nyuuzyou/wikis huggingface dataset:
Antonio Lima-de-Faria

António Lima-de-Faria is a geneticist and professor emeritusUniversity of Lund: Staff at the university of Lund, Sweden (the home of Nils Heribert Nilsson). 
In Evolution without Selection (1988) Lima-de-Faria proposed that evolution is "ordered" by physico-chemical processes (see orthogenesis). Thus, while he accepts the theory of evolution, Lima-de-Faria is a non-Darwinian who rejects the doctrine of natural selection.
Lima-de-Faria is often quote-mined by advocates of creationism. One passage he wrote ("...there has never been a theory of evolution...") seems to indicate that he is rejecting the concept of evolution. However, the passage as quoted is meaningless outside of its full context, making it completely unclear what Lima-De-Faria was saying. Given that Lima-de-Faria also wrote that "evolution starts when the universe is born",Antonio Lima-de-Faria Evolution without Selection. Form and Function by Autoevolution, 1988, Elsevier, New York, page 18 it's obvious that his views on the topic are more complicated than creationists wish them to be.
==References==
Category:Creationism
Category:Scientists
Category:Living people
Category:Portugal
Category:Sweden
Apatheism

Apatheism (a portmanteau of "apathy" and "theism") is a position that the very question of whether or not deities exist is not relevant or meaningful in life. Apatheists are not interested in addressing any claims for or against god(s). Almost literally "I don't care about gods". Apatheists maintain it's not a claim, belief, or belief system, but rather an "attitude".
Author and journalist Jonathan Rauch described apatheism as:
A more nuanced apatheist view might be that to invest any great amount of emotional or mental energy in God — whether in a positive or a negative sense — is to maintain the central importance of God, to maintain that God is a matter that commands attention. An apatheist might take the position that treating God as an important matter and expecting others to place the same importance on God is precisely the problem.
Less abstractly, an apatheist may feel that they have only a finite amount of mental and emotional resources, and that for them the subject of God is not a productive investment of time.
Or it may be, simply, "I accept that other people need these antiquated absurdities, but I don't. I don't see why I should bother to engage them — or why I should be expected to. I have more enjoyable ways to waste my time."
==Criticism of the idea==
One criticism of the idea of apatheism is that the assumption of "any gods existing or not is irrelevant to life" only works in the event that any existing deities are essentially non-interventionist — a deistic god has little relevance to the world, while the Greco-Roman pantheon (known in mythology for meting retribution for the slightest of perceived insults) being real would have several real-world implications, as would many other religions' mythological figures.
* From the apatheistic perspective, this criticism presumes the importance and relevance of God, or at least the idea of God, in order to convince the apatheist of the importance and relevance of God. In other words, what it attempts to prove is contained in the premises. (Assuming, of course, that the argument is actually intended to convince apatheists, rather than talk about apatheism to some other audience. This cannot be taken for granted.) 
*Besides, why would an apatheist even be interested in whether gods exist, or how interventionist they are — let alone be motivated to fear their intervention?Fear as an argument for belief… where have we seen that before? Anyone who would be convinced away from apatheism by such an argument is already not an apatheist, essentially by definition.
== See also ==
*Agnosticism
*Antitheism
*Atheism
*Ignosticism
*Theism
==References==
==Notes==
Category:Philosophy
Category:Paradigms of religion
Apelación a la fe

Una apelación a la fe significa cuando alguien te dice que tú debes aceptar la verdad de una declaración a fin de aceptarlo racionalmente.
La falacia es una forma del razonamiento circular y una falacia informal.
==Forma==
Para reafirmar los creyentes:
Para destruir a los increyentes:
==Explicación==
Fe, por definición, es una creencia que no esta basada en lógica o pruebas. La fe es dependiente en pensamiento irracional.
El decir que una creencia es inmune del criticismo de los increyentes es una petición especial y nunca falla, haciendolo un razonamiento circular.
==Ejemplos==
*"¡Cuando lo crees, lo entenderás!"
*"¡Si aceptases a El, lo entenderias!"
*"¡Si tan solo aceptases la palabra de Maslow, lo entenderias!"
*"El motivo por el que yo sé el cristianismo es verdad es primero el fundamento del testimonio del espíritu Santo en mi corazón. Y esto me da una base auto-afirmativa de saber que el cristianismo es verdad independientemente de las pruebas." — William Lane Craig combinando una apelacion a la fe con otras falacias, incluyendo una apelacion a la autoridad (y una basada en la fe ademas).
==Véase también==
===Versiones en otros idiomas===
Category:Circular reasoning
Category:Español
Category:Informal fallacies
Apelación a la piedad

Una apelación a la piedad (en latino: argumentum ad misericordiam) es cuando algo es declarado ser verdad porque (a) es triste o (b) su falsedad va causar tristeza. Su contrario es el apelar al odio.
Es una apelacion a las emociones y una falacia informal. 
==Forma==
Para echar texto en una imagen de perrito triste:
Para demandar un mejor grado:
==Explicación==
Porque algo sea triste no lo hace más o menos verdad.
==Ejemplos==
*No podia pagar la universidad, y no puedo entender sus elegantes argumentos. Pero lei mi biblia, y me romperia mi corazón si es falsa.
*Bob fue un huérfano, criado de un padrastro que tenía trabajar trabajos de baja categoria todo el fia día para llegar a fin de mes. 
*Yo sé que Scruffles tiene la rabia, mata otros mascotas, y destruye los mobiliarios, ¡pero lo quiero y no puedes quitarmelo!
*Agente, no puedes ponerme una multa por cruzar en rojo: Estaba yendo al hospital para visitar mi esposa en condición grave para decirle que estoy despedido, la casa quemó, y han embargado el coche.
==Véase también==
===Versiones en otros idiomas===
Category:Emotional appeals
Category:Español
Category:Latin phrases
Apelo à fé

Um apelo à fé (ou um apelo à crença) ocorre quando alguém diz que vocẽ deve aceitar a verdade de uma afirmação de maneira a aceitá-la racionalmente.
A falácia em questão em uma forma de lógica circular e uma falácia informal.
==Formato==
Afirmando os crentes:
Silenciando os não-crentes:
==Explicação==
Fé, por definição, é uma crença que não tem base na Lógica ou na evidência. Fé depende de um pensamento irracional.
Dizer que uma crença é imune à crítica de não-crentes é uma petição especial e nunca falha, tornando isso uma lógica circular.
==Exemplos==
*"Quando você acreditar nisso, você entenderá!"
*"Se você aceitar o Senhor, você entenderá!"
*"Se você aceitasse a palavra de Maslow, você entenderia!"
*"O motivo porque eu sei que o Cristianismo é verdadeiro é devido ao testemunho do Espírito Santos em meu coração. E isto me dá uma base auto-afirmativa de saber que o Cristianismo é verdade independentemente das provas." — William Lane Craig combinando uma apelação à fé com outras falácias, incluindo uma apelação à autoridade (e uma baseada na fé nesse caso).
==Ver também==
==Ligações externas==
*Appeal to Faith — Logically Fallacious 
*Appeal to faith — C. George Boeree
*Logical Fallacy Lesson 7: Appeal to Faith — Rational Responders
Category:Português
Aphorism

An aphorism is a form of communication that is intended to be easily memorized, generally word for word and most often have some pithy religious or philosophical comment on the world.
Several examples include:
"Let those who have ears, hear" -- Jesus
"In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments — there are consequences." -- Robert G. IngersollOxford Reference
Nearly every aphorism has an opposite aphorism.
==Aphorisms in politics==
Aphorisms are often overused when candidates compete for votes. One could easily imagine a debate between two presidential nominees sounding something like this:
*John McCain: The bigger the better.
*Barack Obama: Good things come in small packages.
*McCain: Look before you leap.
*Obama: He who hesitates is lost.
*McCain: Clothes make the man.
*Obama: Never judge a book by its cover.
*McCain: When in Rome do as the Romans do.
*Obama: To thine own self be true.
*McCain: Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
*Obama: Out of sight, out of mind.
*McCain: Better safe than sorry.
*Obama: Nothing ventured, nothing gained
*McCain: The more the merrier.
*Obama: Two's company three's a crowd.
*McCain: It's never too late to learn.
*Obama: You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
*McCain: Has the cat got your tongue?
*Obama: Don't let the cat out of the bag.
*McCain: Let sleeping dogs lie.
*Obama: Leave no stone unturned.
*McCain: I know you are but what am I...
*Obama: I am rubber you are glue....
Category:Language
Apocalyptic literature

Apocalyptic literature (from Greek Αποκαλυψις, (Apokalypsis) "lifting a veil", "revealing") as a literary genre concentrates on prophecies concerning eschatological end times. It had its origins in the Jewish literary traditions of the first millennium BCE. The early Christians through the Roman period and the Middle Ages continued the tradition.
The two best-known examples of the genre appear in the Bible: the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation in the New Testament.
==Nature of the genre==
Although apocalyptic literature often deals with eschatological themes, such as in the Book of Revelation, it would be a misunderstanding to read such works as direct, literal predictions about future historical events. Rather, such works are highly allegorical and employ a symbolism which only a limited audience is able to understand. In the case of the Book of Revelation, the fundamental theme is not so much the ending of the world, but a reflection on the persecution of the early Christians by Roman authorities at the time of Emperor Nero. Thus, the Great Beast referred to in Chapter 13 can be identified with Nero, and the opposing cities of Babylon and Jerusalem are symbolic representations of pagan Roman society of the 1st century and of the Christian society which it was hoped would replace it and end the persecutions.
==Book of Daniel==
==Book of Revelation==
==More recent examples==
*The Left Behind series of US Christian fundamentalist apocalyptic pulp with just a hint of Schadenfreude when it comes to the fates of those not whisked away to their heavenly rewards.
==Non-religious parallels==
*Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and especially its societal breakdown and Going Galt parts owe a fair share to apocalyptic literature (incl. the barely disguised glee over the misfortunes of characters who don't fit Rand's Objectivist ideals).
*William Luther Pierce's 1978 book, The Turner Diaries, is a white supremacist racist/racialist fantasy (and pretty much everyone else's nightmare) about the brave new world genocidal race war that eventually creates a "pure" white Eden.
==See also==
*List of predictions of the end of the world
==External links==
*
Category:Bible analysis
Category:End of the world
Category:Literature
Apologetics Press

Apologetics Press is a site that focuses on Christian apologetics. The site's editors compile topics related to Christianity, throw out the ones that don't agree with them, and makes the ones that do look trustworthy.
Apologetics Press seems to be written from a fundamentalist point of view, as they hold that there are no biblical contradictions. The site seems to enjoy archiving debates in which atheists have lost. They think this will make them more respectable because rhetoric is better than evidence. Who needs empirical evidence and consistent observation when you can just play on the audience's ignorance and persuade them that there is a magic man who'll take them to heaven if they believe in him?
Unlike other fundamentalists, Apologetics Press believes that baptism is necessary for salvation.http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5314 
==Purpose==
Apologetic Press's purpose is to make the scripture of their Oh So Holy and Truthful Divine Graceful All-Loving Merciful Christian God seem scientifically accurate. The site has stated what its authors believe, and then tries to bend logic and evidence to fit their faith.
==Teachings==
Apologetics Press is written from the perspective of the Churches of Christ denomination. It rejects the mainstream protestant doctrine of sola fide (salvation by faith alone) and believes that works are involved in salvation. As a result, it is poorly received by the Evangelical Christians whose websites dominate internet resources on religion. For instance, Matt Slick of CARM calls the website "outside Christian orthodoxy."Slick, Matthew. "Apologetics Press". Christian Apologetics Research Ministry. Accessed August, 2019. However, because Apologetics Press looks and feels like any other fundie website and emphasizes criticism of atheism and other commonalities with other fundies, we'd assume your average fundie web browser wouldn't notice the difference at a first glance. 
==Effect==
Christian apologists will sometimes use Apologetics Press to damage what credibility they originally had; they will occasionally cite it as a source when debating a godless heathen, and then seriously wonder why said heathen starts laughing at AP's preposterous claims and assertions. The site can be a useful tool to examine various apologist oxymorons, such as "Reason and Revelation", and can also sometimes be used as a murder weapon, as its exploded and ridiculous claims can kill you with laughter. The site has a sleek design, having recently been revamped. All that being said, it still contains obvious bias and reversals of scientific method, the site is also a good place where one can practice one's knowledge of logical fallacies. The site's most popular ones are: the false dichotomy, non sequitur, argument from design, argument from authority and the typical straw man.
==See also==
*Atheism
*Conservapedia
*Faith
==External links:==
*Apologetics Press
==References==
Category:Websites
Category:Christian apologists
Apology

We're sorry that you came to this page, we really are. If you don't believe us, you can read more about people defending the indefensible here.
*Apologetics — the Christian brand, perhaps the largest and most profitable of the apologetics industries
**Answers in Genesis — Wait, I wanted an apology, not an answer.
**Apologetics Press — one of the more prominent industries
**New Apologetics — Splitters!
**Mormon apologetics:
***FairMormon
***Nahom
**:Category:Christian apologists — a sorry Lot
**:Category:Apologists and counter-apologists — con and pro
*Communist apologetics:
**Mao apologetics — starve and purge
**Stalin apologetics — Stalin did nothing wrong.
*Jewish apologetics: Kuzari principle
*:Category:Muslim apologists
*Pedophilia apology:
**North American Man/Boy Love Association
**Online pedophile activism
**Paedophile Information Exchange
**Milo Yiannopoulos
*Rape apology — Men have been getting away with rape for millennia.
*Slavery:
**Lost Cause of the South — slavery and Confederate States of America apologetics
**:Category:Slavery apologists — the sons of slave owners casting hatred upon the sons of slaves
**Slavery in the Bible, e.g. "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling…"
Apophasis

Apophasis (from the Greek ἀπόφημι, "to say no") is a rhetorical device where the speaker introduces a subject by saying that it should not be brought up, or even denying that they are even speaking about it. It can be a way to make an ad hominem attack ("it would be unfair to dwell on my opponent's alcoholism"), to break a taboo ("only a fool would suggest that the emperor had no clothes"), or to flatter an audience by explaining something while saying there is no need to explain it (but you knew that).
In his 1657 book The Mysterie of Rhetorique Unvail'd, John Smith defines apophasis as "a kind of irony, whereby we deny that we say or doe that which we especially say or doe".
Apophasis is one of Donald Trump's favorite rhetorical devices. In 2015, when talking about rival Republican candidate Carly Fiorina, he said "I promised I would not say that she ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground, that she laid off tens of thousands of people and she got viciously fired. I said I will not say it, so I will not say it."Igor Bobic, 16 February 2016, "He Would Never Admit it, But This is Donald Trump's Favorite Rhetorical Device", The Huffington Post In 2017, he asked on Twitter "Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me 'old,' when I would NEVER call him 'short and fat?'"
==See also==
*Self-refuting idea
==References==
Category:Rhetoric
Category:Fallacious arguments
Appeal to accomplishment

An appeal to accomplishment (also known as appeal to success) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is defended from criticism based upon the level of accomplishment of the individual making the argument, or when arguments are assessed based upon the success of the person making the argument."Appeal to Accomplishment." Logically Fallacious, 15 Nov 2021, https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Accomplishment 
The fallacy is an appeal to authority fallacy and a genetic fallacy, but it's also somewhat similar to the appeal to celebrity fallacy, as celebrities tend to be successful.
==Form==
P1: X is true.
P2: (unstated) P1 is very successful.
C: X is true.
P1: X is a bad argument.
P2: (unstated) The person who rejects X is not as successful as the one who made the argument.
C: X is true.
== Problems ==
The success of an individual is completely irrelevant to the argument they are making. In fact, you can be successful, and still be incorrect when making a certain argument. For example, if a said crank argues against abiogenesis, but is a well-accomplished person, their stance against abiogenesis is invalid regardless of their accomplishments. Moreover, a response against abiogenesis denial isn't illegitimate merely because the person making it is less successful than the aforementioned crank. 
==See also==
*Appeal to authority
*Appeal to celebrity
*Genetic fallacy
==References==
Appeal to age

An appeal to age is a fallacy in which someone's age is cited as evidence for their position being true/false. It is a subset of the genetic fallacy, and if someone's age is used against their position, it is an argumentum ad hominem (which is also a subset of a genetic fallacy).
Usually it is used to support the arguments of people who are older, and discredit arguments of younger people.
==Form==
==Explanation==
Although someone who is older is generally wiser and more knowledgeable, old/young people can be wrong/right. Someone who is old can still believe in bullshit, and someone who is young can still make a sound argument.Also, and old people tend to be more set in their ways and unwilling to change their minds if their current position is debunked.
==Examples==
*"I've studied theology for many years, and have concluded that there is a God."
*"You're only 13, so you can't say that creationism is false."
*"You think parents shouldn't beat their kids? Back in my day, we got the belt! You Millennials/Gen Z kids are so entitled!"
*"You're just a kid."
*"American customary measurement system has been around since the Romans, unlike the johnny-come-lately Metric system, so it is proven and better!"
*"Respect your elders."
==See also==
*Genetic fallacy
*Argumentum ad hominem
*Appeal to ancient wisdom
==Notes==
Category:Informal fallacies
Appeal to bias

An appeal to bias is a fallacy that occurs when an assertion is discredited because of the asserter's (supposed) bias.
The fallacy is an ad hominem fallacy and thus an informal fallacy; often, it is a form of poisoning the well.
==Alternate names==
*circumstantial ad hominem
*appeal to (private) motive(s)
==Form==
===Appeal to motive===
The most common appeal to bias is an appeal to motive (or circumstantial ad hominem), in which it is asserted that the opponent's argument is false because they have some (base) motive for advancing it and are thus biased against the truth.
#Person A says P.
#Person A has an interest in P being true.
#P is false.
==Explanation==
X's bias is not a determinant of Y's truth. If X is the most disgustingly biased individual in existence, but then calls the sky blue, does X's bias change the color of the sky? Rejecting X as closeminded does not entail anything else.
==Examples==
All shill gambits are appeals to bias. In many cases there is no actual evidence of the supposed motive. A common example is the Big Pharma Conspiracy: defenders of woo will dismiss those advancing rational argument as being "big pharma shills" or part of "$cience":
Ad iram: Appealing to the opponent's supposed or real anger as evidence against their position.
==Legitimate use==
Appeal to motive is a logical fallacy. However, motive can be highly relevant in practical discourse: when almost all the proponents of position A seem to support rather more odious position B, then it's a useful heuristic to check out whether B is actually the goal. e.g. Holocaust denial is, in practice, overwhelmingly just neo-Nazism dressed up as a mere question of history. Similarly, much of the denial of the health effects of tobacco was funded by tobacco companies.
If one can prove the opponent's argument is false, and that they have an ulterior motive for making the false claim, their entire position is much weaker. But to argue robustly, you need to show the actual argument is wrong. Simply being indicated as having a bias does not make one wrong.
It is also helpful as a crutch when assessing sources when pressed for time. Take, for example, Julius Caesar. Caesar is obviously a biased source when describing his own exploits in Gaul, so when he says something that makes Julius Caesar look bad — say, describing a battle where he got shellacked — it is rather more likely to be true. Similarly, a noted detractor of Caesar writing something that makes Caesar look good is also more likely to be true. After all — what reason would they have to lie if it goes against their obvious biases? However, as mentioned earlier, it is only a crutch and people can be lying or mistaken even in public written statements that make them, their cause, or their side look bad.
==See also==
*Fake news
*Stopped clock
*Bulverism
*Gore's Law
*Shill gambit
*Whiteknighting
==References==
Category:Ad hominem
Category:Fallacious arguments
Category:Informal fallacies
Appeal to confidence

An appeal to confidence occurs when somebody's confidence in some fact is taken as proof of that fact. On the other hand, an appeal to unconfidence (also ad fidentia, against self-confidence) occurs when somebody's lack of confidence in some fact is taken as disproof of that fact. Either appeal ties confidence to authority and ties authority to truth.
It is an appeal to authority (or lack of authority), an informal fallacy, and a fallacious argument.
If the arguer additionally states something along the lines of "doesn't his confidence just lift your spirits?" or the inverse, it also qualifies as an emotional appeal.
Of note, it is related to the Dunning–Kruger effect.
==Form==
Appeal to confidence:
Or:
Appeal to unconfidence:
Or:
==External links==
*Appeal to Confidence, Bruce Thompson's Fallacy Page
*Appeal to Authority, LogicWizard
==See also==
*Appeal to authority
*Con artist
*Emotional appeal
Category:Appeals to authority
Category:Emotional appeals
Category:Informal fallacies