Graham

That you're essentially following an argument from authority (in believing your prophets and/or other leaders and/or writers of holy books)?

That this authority can either be 1.) Infallible or 2.) Completely Speculating/Lying?

That we have no reliable way of confirming or disproving this authority?

That there are several other conflicting authorities, and that consequently the probability of legitimacy of any one authority is quite low?

That the authority you originally subscribe to is highly correlated with the authority your parents subscribed to?

That consequently, your particular original religious affiliation is very possibly an arbitrary stance inherited by parental social pressure, and not discovered by truth value, logical progression, or even spiritual experiences?

I'm not a huge anime viewer, I've watched maybe 7 or 8 full shows, and Darker Than Black s1 was by the best, even compared with Cowboy Bebop and others.

I feel that the animation quality, plot (and small story arcs contained within), concept, etc. were unique and well thought out without being overdone.

That said, does anyone else who loves it as much as me have any recommendations for similar animes? And I don't mean "Well I like both it and this so you'd like this", but a recommendation that you feel is on par with animation and plot quality and as similar as possible to DTB.

(I've already watched season two and the ovas, so those don't count)

Misha's voice is just so damn amazing I can't believe it, then there are rumors of autotune and people who say he sounds the same live. So does anyone know for sure? I'm having trouble finding anything about it online or anywhere else.

I gotta say if they do, they're pretty subtle about it.

Seriously, you cant even say question without someone posting "LOL SO YOUR DADS A MONKEY THEN?" or something similar.

Way to not understand the theory of evolution, go read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution because even wikipedia is more reliable than logical fallacies.

inb4 "we dont all create strawmen". You can see in the syntax of my question that I specifically addressed those anti-evolutionists who create strawmen arguments.

Did you know that the theory of gravitation is only a theory?

That the theory of electromagnetism is only a theory?

Theories are theories because it is nearly impossible to prove with 100% certainty anything in this universe, let alone phenomena as complex as evolution.

A theory should be accepted when it is the best fit model for observable phenomenon, and guess what, evolution fits right in there.

And direct that question at a subgroup, people admonish them for purportedly generalizing the entire group to that subgroup?

Again long but hopefully worth it.

Bertrand Russell's Teapot:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Essentially, the belief in a God does not need to be proven; it must be disproven, because it is an unnecessary and therefore less likely (Occam's Razor and Marcus Hutter's mathematical proof whose name I cannot remember nor find). Moreover it is possible if not likely that this claim was created during an age of irrational thought and carried over by its strong social entrenchment, not its validity.

Common Rebuttal #1: "James Wood, without believing in a god, says that belief in God is more reasonable than belief in a teapot because God is a "grand and big idea" which "is not analogically disproved by reference to celestial teapots or vacuum cleaners, which lack the necessary bigness and grandeur"."

Actually, the larger and more convoluted an idea is, the less likely it is because it rests on more assumptions. The teapot is, assuming someone had the will and means to place it there, more plausible than a God because we know teapots exist in a material form, and less assumptions are required to support this.

Common Rebuttal #2: "Another counter-argument, advanced by Eric Reitan, is that belief in God is different from belief in a teapot because teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable, and that given what we know about the physical world we have no good reason to think that belief in Russell's teapot is justified and at least some reason to think it not."

This assumes that the spiritual world exists outside of physical matter and that within it dwells a God. While it is potentially possible (like the teapot) that such a thing exists, we have no reason to believe this nor evidence to verify this. As said within the argument itself, it is unverifiable. Why, then should it be believed when a less complex and equally compatible possibility exists: That it does not exist.

Any other theist counterarguments?

Now I'm pretty accepting of peaceful Muslims, but you have to admit that the last Surah in the Qur'an was the Surah of the Sword, and that at the very least, the wording of it would suggest that Muslims spread their Religion through violence.

Even if you do not interpret it that way, you have to admit that it could be interpreted that way.

Why would Allah preach in a fashion that allows for spread of your religion through violence if he did not want it to happen? Surely in his omnipotence and omniscience he knows that this WOULD lead to violence.

Why would he say it?

The one where Michael Cera plays a socially awkward teen?

Always rip on the polytheists as though they're completely insane.

Their religions were around before any western monotheisms, just because one of yours wiped all of their followers out at some point doesn't make them any more (or less) crazy.

A bit lengthy, but worth it.

Which side (theists vs atheists) the burden of proof rests on has been argued for far too long. Theists claim that atheists had the original claim that there is no God, because "there really is", so the claim that God exists is not made explicitly. Atheists claim that theists had the original claim, because they one day said "maybe there is a God" when there actually isn't. In this way each side believes the other is the first arguer and therefore the one who possesses the burden of proof.

The problem is that the atheists actually claim that theists are using a claim of existence, whereas theists claim that atheists are using a claim of nonexistence. However, in any conservative model of argumentation, the burden of proof rests on the party who makes the claim of existence. IE: In the American court system, the prosecution makes a claim of existence of a crime, which they must then prove. This is because a claim of existence is really more accusatory, (IE: You have weed in your room, don't you? vs: You do not have weed in your room, do you?) simply because of the fact that the natural state of things is assumed to be nonexistant in any one place; if it did exist there, it was planted there and thus someone is to blame (accusation). Therefore: Claims of existence are accusatory.

The existence of (a) God(s) is surely an important topic, and as such we do not want to err in our decision. Therefore: The argument surrounding the existence of God must be handled in a conservatory fashion.

As established already: Conservatory approach to argumentation results in the burden of proof resting on the accuser (claim of existence) because it alleges that something happened, whereas nonexistence alleges that said accuser is incorrect.

Therefore: The burden of proof rests on theists.

Argument from authority is a fallacy. It is not. It is induction. Argument from unqualified authority is a fallacy.

I would also like to point out that Stephen Hawking is a very good authority, and that if you prescribe to an organized religion, you're essentially using argument from authority.

How come there's an R&S section as well as a Mythology and Folklore section?

God created humans. Confirm/Deny?

In Genesis 1 it is written...

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

However, in creating light, God would have to simultaneously create darkness?

Also, how is it that the Earth is not in existence at this point in time and yet there is somehow day and night? In fact, the second "day" passes without an Earth as well.

Which is a better argument from authority?

Multiple Bronze Age writers who may or may not have been on hallucinogenic drugs writing a book with no prior research other than purported voices which they may or may not have heard, who claim that a God exists and has done many specific actions, often which they did not witness

or...

The foremost respected physicist of perhaps all time, with more tools than those respected during prior ages, writing a theory that God ->is not necessary<- for the creation of the universe, after much research.

I've checked online and so far it seems like it has to be caused by a drain from the radio, clock, etc.

As far as I've been able to check so far it's neither of these two, and I just checked and the LED odometer is constantly on (I left the car shut down with key out of ignition and doors shut for ~10 minutes and checked through the window, it was still on).

For some reason I could not find anyone saying anything about this online, would it be possible that this is draining my battery to 0 within a period of 3 days?

I recently got a 05 kia optima in pretty nice shape other than one problem: When i first got it the key worked fine. VERY QUICKLY it has become harder and harder to use and now I cannot even turn it in the ignition, and it's very hard to unlock the door. This happens with both the original key and the two copies I have (which were made before this problem started). I have tried the trick of turning the steering wheel around while turning the key and thumping the steering wheel while turning. Neither seemed to work. Any ideas?

I have the current most up to date version of itunes, and when i try to sync my 32g itouch itunes crashes. All i have done since last sync is downloaded 11 songs, and they do not make it onto the itouch before the crash. The crash always happens at the very start, when it syncs my apps, which I have had since before the last sync.

I've tried restarting the itouch, restarting the computer, restarting itunes, disconnecting the itouch and reconnecting it, nothing works. Anyone have any other ideas before i have to uninstall and reinstall itunes?

They take forever to load and oftentimes don't at all... it's getting extremely tiring and I've tried pretty much everything, including uninstalling and reinstalling flash player. Yes, I have the adblocker plugin, but it doesn't work on some sites.

Recently youtube videos have stopped working period.