Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 14270

1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions: In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.
Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and the Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself.
Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible.

2. Arguing in a circle: If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing.

Circle If you end where you began, you got nowhere.

Examples:
1.Proving Allah by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Allah.
2.Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad.
3.Proving Islam by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Islam.

Dr. Robert Morey, Answering-Islam.org.uk 33 Comments [8/26/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
solomongrundy

The Bible is the word of God, because it says so in the Bible.
Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

8/27/2006 2:24:24 PM

noself

When I first visited that site I thought it was still fairly interesting.

Until I took a second glance at the url and figured out who were the ones writing it and realised the full power and extent of cognitive disonance.

8/27/2006 2:28:40 PM

Papabear

\"1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions: In logic as well as in law, \"historical precedent\" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified.\"

No, in logic, precedent means nothing. Just because something has been done one way for centuries doesn't mean that it is right.

The burden of proof is on those who make an assertion. For instance, if one asserts that God is real, one must provide clear, unbiased evidence for that position.


\"The old tests the new.\"

No, the old and the new should be tested seperately and weighed on the own merits.


\"The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.

No. See above.


\"Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity.\"

Well then, since Christianity came after Judaism, the burden of proof is on Christianity. Since Judaism came along after pagan religions, the burden of proof is on Judaism. You see where this is going?


\"The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and the Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself.\"

Looking for the truth by comparing fairy tales to fairy tales in a pointless exercise.


\"Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible.\"

Yeah, yeah, yeah.


\"2. Arguing in a circle: If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing.\"

A favorite tactic of many Christian apologists.


\"Circle If you end where you began, you got nowhere.\"

True.


\"Examples:
1.Proving Allah by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Allah.\"

Or, proving God by the Bible and the Bible by God.


\"2.Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad.\"

Or, proving Jesus by the Bible and the Bible by Jesus.


\"3.Proving Islam by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Islam.\"

Or, proving Christianity by the Bible and the Bible by Christianity.

Do you notice a similarity here?

8/27/2006 2:48:56 PM

themann1086

There are two separate fallacies involving historical precedent.

The first is the appeal to tradition, which is \"Something is right because we've always done it this way\".

The second is the appeal to novelty, which is \"Something is right because it is new\".

In other words, what Papabear said.

8/27/2006 4:25:03 PM

Mister Spak

This is something I would make up to make christian fundies look bad.
A real christian fundie beat me to it.

8/27/2006 4:27:25 PM

Brain_In_A_Jar

Even if this bullshit was valid and the Qur'an had to prove itself over the bible, the bible would in turn have to prove itself against all the religions that were earlier still, and so on back to the beginning of humanity. Kind of a Herculean task if you ask me.

8/27/2006 4:41:14 PM

Crosis

In logic as well as in law, \"historical precedent\" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified.


I'm not entirely certain of this, but even if I were to grant it, the Bible has never been \"verified\", so it's not applicable.

When the Bible and the Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority.


Then you'll have a hell of a time defending all of the places the Bible contradicts the Vedas.

8/27/2006 4:51:14 PM

Bone_Vulture

Maybe I should become a zoroastrian just so I could coax \"Dr.\" Morey to produce evidence for everything he thinks is true in the bible.

Damn, Crosis beat me to it. :p

8/27/2006 5:35:36 PM

Kit

God exists because the Bible said so, and the Bible is always correct because God said so. Hello Pot, have you met Kettle?

8/27/2006 5:54:14 PM

Napoleon the Clown

Where's the irony antidote?!

8/27/2006 6:40:43 PM

ABeastOfPrey

So, what about where Rabbinic law contradicts the Bible? Judaism has Christianity beat by 4000 years or such, so it's got that much more of a leg to stand on.

8/27/2006 7:35:33 PM

Wolf O'Donnell (SWHQ)

What about how Jesus doesn't meet any of the criteria of the Messiah as laid out in the Old Testament?

8/27/2006 10:33:53 PM

Nezu Chiza

His whole arguement hinges on the Babble having been \"verified\" somehow. Last I heard, saying \"Goddidit\" doesn't qualify as verification. Using the \"logic\" that the Babble SAYS it is itself the Word of God, I could write a book claiming I'M god and use that as \"proof\" I was :P

8/27/2006 10:49:58 PM

solomongrundy

Um, the NT Jesus doesn't meet many of the criteria in Revelation, either.

8/27/2006 10:52:57 PM

McCulloch

As Papabear pointed out the stuff about \"historical precedent\" is bullshit.
And circular arguments are favoured by religious apologists. This guy recognizes circular arguments when made by his religious enemies. Next step, recognize them when made by his own group.
Something about having something in your own eye.

8/28/2006 1:45:32 AM

Redhunter

Epic of Gilgamesh anybody?
How about a pre-bible story about a wonderous garden where man is created?
What of the expulsion of the Hyksos compared to the exodus as written of in the bible?
Zeus, Attis-Adonis, Attison image of a man tied to a tree, Osirus and the grain cakes which represent the 'body' of the lord, Persian cult of Mithra, the Hindu worldwide flood, Chaldean myth, Atum and Ea, Zoroaster, Buddah, Prometheus, Bacchus, Quexalcote, Hercules, Alexander the Great, Ya, Xaca, Baal and I'm sure I'm missing a shitload more. \"Logically\" one would have to go to the oldest texts, correct?

YOU, EEDIOT!~Ren

Reminds me of one of my faves; \"Tradition will accustom people to any atrocity.\"
--George Bernard Shaw

8/28/2006 7:19:45 AM

CP489

The irony is strong with this one.

8/28/2006 10:43:20 AM

JustinGG

How did this guy get Dr. in front of his name?

8/28/2006 1:26:16 PM

Adrian

2.Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad.

Think what you want of his theories/teachings, but last time I checked Muhammad's historical existance was not in doubt... (which is more than can be said for Jeebus)

How did this guy get Dr. in front of his name?

Patriot University? Or just plain bullshitting...

8/28/2006 8:47:48 PM

bobo

What about the Beaker Folk...Beaker Folk I say...oh the humanity

8/28/2006 10:46:51 PM

Redhunter

Justin GG said: \"How did this guy get Dr. in front of his name?\"

The same way \"Dr.\" hovind, \"Dr.\" J and \"Dr.\" Dre did, they typed capital 'd', small 'r' and then a period. See? It's THAT easy!

8/29/2006 6:29:10 AM

Sasquatch

No comment on this one. It speaks for itself.

8/30/2006 5:21:22 AM

WritingIsMyReligion

I think the hypocrisy of this is about to kill me.

lmfao

9/2/2006 3:17:46 AM

Maronan

...The burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.


No. If something new contradicts something old, they must both be examined; whichever one is supported by evidence is retained. You can't reject something because an authority says so. Old does not mean correct; to suggest that the Bible gets priority over the Quran because it's older is an appeal to tradition, a fallacy described above.

2. Arguing in a circle...


Stop right there! Don't worry about what's in Muslims' eyes; you've got an old growth forest in your own.

9/9/2006 12:51:27 PM

Archangel_Lucifer


9/13/2006 1:39:15 AM
1 2