Argument from perfect preservation
August 6, 2015 at 11:17 am
(This post was last modified: August 6, 2015 at 11:37 am by Psychonaut.)
Good grief this topic annoys the shit straight out of my ass, but, alas, I have a strong urge to post about it.
What exactly is it with this argument from perfect preservation I keep hearing in religious circles?
IE: *the bible hasn't changed (even though we've got no way to verify it, and plenty of scholars to suggest otherwise)
*the quran hasn't changed (a bit more of a stable text, but still with variants that get swept under the rug, due entirely to testicular atrophy on part of the western academics)
Are the sons of Abraham forgetting one very important text that hasn't been corrupted in over 4400 years?
![[Image: 1024px-Hieroglyph_Text_from_Teti_I_pyramid.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Hieroglyph_Text_from_Teti_I_pyramid.jpg/1024px-Hieroglyph_Text_from_Teti_I_pyramid.jpg)
And we all know what they think of Pharaoh.
Does anyone have any other arguments against this blatant fallacy? or possible variants that will tear it down further?
I do honestly think there is a lot of dishonest dialogue when it comes to the humanities, and am not always well equipped for the sophistry that goes on when discussing them.
What exactly is it with this argument from perfect preservation I keep hearing in religious circles?
IE: *the bible hasn't changed (even though we've got no way to verify it, and plenty of scholars to suggest otherwise)
*the quran hasn't changed (a bit more of a stable text, but still with variants that get swept under the rug, due entirely to testicular atrophy on part of the western academics)
Are the sons of Abraham forgetting one very important text that hasn't been corrupted in over 4400 years?
And we all know what they think of Pharaoh.
Does anyone have any other arguments against this blatant fallacy? or possible variants that will tear it down further?
I do honestly think there is a lot of dishonest dialogue when it comes to the humanities, and am not always well equipped for the sophistry that goes on when discussing them.
Plato had defined Man as an animal, biped and featherless, and was applauded. Diogenes plucked a fowl and brought it into the lecture room with the words,
"Behold Plato's man!"
