trentmkelly/rationalwiki huggingface dataset:
Apatheism

{{significantly problematic}}{{atheism}}
'''Apatheism''' (a portmanteau of "apathy" and "[[theism]]") is a position that the very question of whether or not [[God|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:

{{quotebox|top=1|[A] disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion and even a stronger disinclination to care about other people's.}}

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, [[Begging the question|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?<ref group=note>[[Argumentum ad baculum|Fear as an argument for belief]]… where have we seen ''that'' before?</ref> 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==
{{reflist}}

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

{{stub|religion}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Paradigms of religion]]

Categories: Philosophy, Paradigms of religion
Apelación a la fe

{{Translation of|Spanish|Appeal to faith}}{{lognav}}
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:
{{syl
|2=Tengo fe que '''X''' es verdad.
|4=(implicito) Todo lo que creo es verdad.
|5=C|6='''X''' es verdad.
}}

Para destruir a los increyentes:
{{syl
|2=Es imposible determinar si '''X''' es verdad a menos que creas que '''X''' es verdad.
|4=No crees que '''X''' es verdad.
|5=C|6=No puedes determinar si '''X''' es verdad.
}}

==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==
{{otherlang
|pagelang=es
|en=Appeal to faith
|fr=Appel à la foi
|pt=Apelo à fé}}

[[Category:Circular reasoning]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]

Categories: Circular reasoning, Informal fallacies
Apelación a la piedad

{{Translation of|Spanish|Appeal to pity}}
[[File:Sad Lucy.jpg|thumb|¡Que pena!]]
{{lognav}}
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:
{{syl
|2='''X''' es asegurado en el contexto de la situación triste '''Y'''.
|4=Cualquier argumento afirmado en un contexto triste es verdad.
|5=C|6='''X''' es verdad.
}}

Para demandar un mejor grado:
{{syl
|2='''X''' es afirmado por una persona en la situación triste '''Y'''.
|4=Cualquier argumento afirmado por una persona en una situación triste es verdad.
|5=C|6='''X''' es verdad.
}}

==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==
{{otherlang
|pagelang=es
|en=Appeal to pity
|fr=Appel à la pitié
|ru=Обращение к жалости}}


[[Category:Emotional appeals]]
[[Category:Latin phrases]]

Categories: Emotional appeals, Latin phrases
Apelo à fé

{{Translation of|Portuguese|Appeal to faith}}
{{nfl}}
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:
{{syl
|2=Tenho fé que '''X''' é verdadeiro.
|4=(implícito) Tudo o que eu acredito é verdadeiro.
|5=C|6='''X''' é verdadeiro.
}}

Silenciando os não-crentes:
{{syl
|2=É impossível afirmar que '''X''' é verdadeiro a não ser que creias '''X''' é verdadeiro.
|4=Você não acredita que '''X''' seja verdadeiro.
|5=C|6=Você não pode determinar se '''X''' é verdadeiro.
}}

==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==
{{otherlang
|pagelang=pt
|en=Appeal to faith
|es=Apelación a la fe
|fr=Appel à la foi}}

==Ligações externas==
*[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/31-appeal-to-faith Appeal to Faith] — Logically Fallacious 
*[http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/fallacies.html Appeal to faith] — C. George Boeree
*[http://www.rationalresponders.com/logical_fallacy_lesson_7_appeal_to_faith Logical Fallacy Lesson 7: Appeal to Faith] — Rational Responders

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Português]]

Categories: Português
Aphorism

{{sources needed}}{{langnav}}
An '''aphorism''' is a form of communication that is intended to be easily memorized, generally word for word and most often have some pithy [[religion|religious]] or [[philosophy|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. Ingersoll<ref>[https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00005774 Oxford Reference]</ref>

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]]

Categories: Language
Apocalyptic literature

{{sources needed}}{{biblenav}}

'''Apocalyptic literature''' (from [[Fun:Greek|Greek]] ''Αποκαλυψις'', (''Apokalypsis'') "lifting a veil", "revealing") as a [[Literature|literary]] genre concentrates on [[prophecy|prophecies]] concerning [[eschatological]] [[end times]]. It had its origins in the [[Judaism|Jewish]] literary traditions of the first millennium BCE. The early [[Christianity |Christians]] through the [[Roman Empire |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, [[Biblical literalism|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 [[List of predictions of the end of the world|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 1<sup>st</sup> century and of the Christian society which it was hoped would replace it and end the persecutions.

==Book of Daniel==
{{main|Book of Daniel}}

==Book of Revelation==
{{main|Book of Revelation}}

==More recent examples==
*The ''[[Left Behind]]'' series of US [[Fundamentalist Christianity|Christian fundamentalist]] apocalyptic pulp with [[Understatement|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 [[Heresy|don't fit]] Rand's [[Objectivism|Objectivist]] ideals).
*[[William Luther Pierce]]'s 1978 book, ''[[The Turner Diaries]]'', is a [[white supremacist]] [[Racism|racist]]/[[Racialism|racialist]] [[Utopia|fantasy]] (and pretty much everyone else's [[Dystopia|nightmare]]) about the 
brave new world
 [[Genocide|genocidal]] [[race war]] that eventually creates a "pure" white [[Heaven|Eden]].
==See also==
*[[List of predictions of the end of the world]]
==External links==
*{{wpa|Apocalyptic literature}}

{{apolbox}}

[[Category:Bible analysis]]
[[Category:End of the world]]
[[Category:Literature]]

Categories: Bible analysis, End of the world, Literature
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.
{{fork}}
*[[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]] — [[Schism|Splitters!]]
**[[Mormon]] apologetics:
***[[FairMormon]]
***[[Nahom]]
**[[:Category:Christian apologists]] — a sorry [[Lot]]
**[[:Category:Apologists and counter-apologists]] — [[Con artist|con]] and pro
*[[Communist]] apologetics:
**[[China apologetics]]
**[[Mao Zedong#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]] — [[Rape culture|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. {{bible|Ephesians|6|5|8}} "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling…"
Apophasis

{{logicnav}}

{{cquote|"God", "immortality of the soul", "redemption", "beyond" — Without exception, concepts to which I have never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps I have never been childlike enough for them? . . . God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers — at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think! |||[[Nietzsche]], devoting attention and time in ''Ecce Homo'' on something to which he never devotes any attention, or time}}

'''Apophasis''' (from the Greek ἀπόφημι, "to say no") is a [[rhetoric]]al 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."<ref>Igor Bobic, 16 February 2016, [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-rhetorical-device_us_56c358cbe4b0c3c55052b32b "He Would Never Admit it, But This is Donald Trump's Favorite Rhetorical Device"], ''[[The Huffington Post]]''</ref> 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?'"<ref>{{cite web | url=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/11/politics/north-korea-trump-asia-trip/index.html | title=Trump sarcastically responds to Kim Jong Un insults | work=CNN | date=11 November 2017 | accessdate=26 September 2019 | author=Karimi, Faith}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[Self-refuting idea]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{stub|Logic}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Fallacious arguments]]

Categories: Rhetoric, Fallacious arguments
Appeal to accomplishment

{{logic}}
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.<ref>"Appeal to Accomplishment." ''Logically Fallacious,'' 15 Nov 2021, https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Accomplishment</ref> 

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:''' ([[enthymeme|unstated]]) P1 is very successful.

'''C:''' '''X''' is true.


'''P1: X''' is a bad argument.

'''P2:''' ([[enthymeme|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==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{logfal}}
Appeal to age

{{logicnav}}
{{hatnote|Not to be confused with [[Appeal to ancient wisdom]] -- when one appeals to "knowledge" of ancient cultures instead of demonstrable facts.}}
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|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|genetic fallacy]]).

Usually it is used to support the arguments of people who are older, and discredit arguments of younger people.

==Form==
{{syl
|2='''X''' holds position '''Y'''.
|4='''X''' is old/young.
|7=P3|8=If someone is old/young, their position is false.
|9=C|10='''Y''' is false.
}}

==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|bullshit]], and someone who is young can still make a [[Soundness|sound]] argument.<ref group=note>Also, {{wpl|Dementia|old people can lose some of their thinking capacity in their twilight years|,}} and old people tend to be more set in their ways and [[Cognitive dissonance|unwilling to change their minds]] [[Confirmation bias|if their current position is debunked]].{{fact}}</ref>

==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==
{{reflist|group=note}}
{{stub|logic}}
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]

Categories: Informal fallacies
Appeal to confidence

{{sources needed}}
{{logicnav}}{{cquote|You're going to like the way you look. I guarantee it.|||George Zimmer (Men's Warehouse CEO)}}

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 ''un''confidence''' (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 [[Ad hominem|lack of authority]]), an [[informal fallacy]], and a [[fallacy|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:
{{syl
|2=A says Q.
|4=A says: "Trust me — I know what I'm doing!"
|5=C|6=Q is true!
}}
Or:
{{syl
|2=A says Q confidiently
|4=Things said confidently are true.
|5=C|6=Q is true!
}}

Appeal to unconfidence:
{{syl
|2=A says Q.
|4=A's shaking in their boots!
|5=C|6=Q is false!
}}
Or:
{{syl
|2=A says Q unconfidiently
|4=Things said unconfidently are false.
|5=C|6=Q is false!
}}

==External links==
*[https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Appeal%20to%20Confidence.html Appeal to Confidence], Bruce Thompson's Fallacy Page
*[http://logicwizard.blogspot.com/2007/07/appeal-to-authority.html Appeal to Authority], LogicWizard

==See also==
*[[Appeal to authority]]
*[[Con artist]]
*[[Emotional appeal]]

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Appeals to authority]]
[[Category:Emotional appeals]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]

Categories: Appeals to authority, Emotional appeals, Informal fallacies