|Part of the series on|
The argumentum ad iram fallacy (ad iram, Latin for "to anger") is an informal logical fallacy, that involves accusing one's opponent of being angry or holding their beliefs for anger-related reasons, which purportedly disproves their argument or diminishes its weight.
- Person A says P.
- Person A hates P and/or Q.
- P is false.
Theist: My god will judge you for these acts you do!
Atheist: I disagree. I don't believe in God.
Theist: What did God do to you to make you hate him?
One can easily see the problem here. The atheist does not believe in the deity in question; thus, said atheist cannot hate what they do not believe in. Also, the atheist could have any reason not to believe in said god; the atheist's emotional state does not invalidate their claim.
It is also an ad-hominem attack and strawman argument that appears often on the Internet; e.g., a person disagrees on a political issue, and one side accuses the other of "being butthurt" and "crying like a little baby", even when no emotion was exhibited by the accused. It also applies to the idea that, if a person doesn't agree with a system they should "get out" and find a country that agrees with a strawman idea of what the dissenter believes.
 See also