ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags pareidolia , shroud of turin

Closed Thread
Old 7th March 2012, 05:22 AM   #41
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 722
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
No, because I think the Shroud is a mediaeval forgery. But your linked page is most unimpressive as a source about Jesus' physical appearance. It contains NO "descriptions", according to any rules whatsoever. Quite so. I gasp in amazement at this being presented as a "description" of Jesus, or even as an indication of his stature, for these reasons:

The account is from John, and is not confirmed in the other gospels. John is not historical.

The "gardener" was Jesus and Mary didn't recognise him! In such circumstances her mental condition doesn't inspire confidence as regards the practicality of her intentions, or her ability to describe the Jesus she couldn't even recognise.

As to "lifting up", NIV renders this passage as "Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” Which doesn't mean she intended to lug his body away by herself without assistance.

Angels are present too. Enough said. Pity they didn't leave us a description. For sure. In the other case almost nobody at all in the crowd would have seen Jesus. I abstain from making any comment on the use of this as a source; and I have already ruled out the Slavonic Josephus interpolations. All the early representations cited are Roman frescos, in which he was of course depicted as a Roman. That he actually was a clean shaven toga wearer is quite impossible, and this image indicates that the Roman Christians had indeed no idea of his real appearance.
Right, The linked page is a summary. If you read my earlier posts, I specifically say 'other' gospels, meaning those outside the NT because they haven't been messed about with as much, the 'other' gospels quoted on that page do describe Jesus. They corroborate each other. Granted, they are not particularly detailed, but it's enough to see the image on the Turin shroud is wrong. Since that was the purpose of the exercise, I consider the page adequate for the purpose.

The gospels in the NT are devotional works not historical, so yes - they can safely be ignored. Yes, the representations cited are in Rome, and therefore Roman, but they date from before Rome's adoption of Christianity. I am not saying they are 100% reliable, but nor can they be completely dismissed.

As for your ruling out of Josephus, that is of course your choice, but you're going to need a citation to convince me.

If you think the Turin shroud is a medieval forgery, then I agree with you. I suggested earlier that it may be an example of iconography, and I still think that's possible. The point I have been making all along is that the Turin shroud is not the burial shroud of Jesus, or indeed anyone else.
__________________
"To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet
"Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin
"A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is merely a superstition" - Me.
azzthom is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 08:03 AM   #42
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,363
- I'm still here. I'm just having trouble keeping up. But, I'll be back with more questions.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 08:51 AM   #43
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,597
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
A number of groups claim that the area of the shroud sampled for 14C analysis was a medieval patch1
You gotta love this. The people who allowed the shroud to be dated were so stupid that they didn't realize they were send labs material that was from a patched area? They think the people handling the shroud are a bunch of moronic clowns, apparently?
__________________
"Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay."

(Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 09:46 AM   #44
Reno
Inquisitor
 
Reno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
I must be getting "good" at "thinking" like a theist maybe due to being exposed to the posts of some people in this thread.


But here is a solution to the dilemma from a theistic twisted point of view....

Jesus when he was in Israel looked like a common place guy in the society of Israel of the epoch.

However, when he got resurrected he deliberately changed his looks to look like a European guy in anticipation of his future role as an inveigler of Europeans.

This also explains why the Disciples did not recognize him when he appeared to them after the resurrection..... he was European looking by then and not at all like the Guy who taught them how to huckster fish for Jewish men. Mark 16:12, Luke 24:18, Luke 24:36-37, John 20:14

Accordingly the shroud would have the image of his new manifestation.

See..... anything is possible for the theistic warped mental gymnastics of casuistry.....reality is what they wish it to be.

I felt conflicted writing this post. On the one hand I did not want to give the casuists more material, and on the other I wanted to beat them to it in order to demonstrate to them that an atheist can beat them at their game.
Jebus was.....Dr Who??
__________________
"You're entitled to your opinion; you're just not entitled to have it taken seriously when you can offer no evidence to support it." - Garrison

"I am the danger." - Heisenberg
Reno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 10:35 AM   #45
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,329
Originally Posted by azzthom View Post
Right, The linked page is a summary. If you read my earlier posts, I specifically say 'other' gospels, meaning those outside the NT because they haven't been messed about with as much, the 'other' gospels quoted on that page do describe Jesus.
I have little if any more faith in the "apocryphal" than in the canonical gospels. Here is an account of the resurrection from the Gospel of Peter:
Quote:
They [soldiers on guard] saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yes.
A sky tall Jesus and a talking Cross. An accurate description of Jesus?
Quote:
Yes, the representations cited are in Rome, and therefore Roman, but they date from before Rome's adoption of Christianity.
But not from before the adoption of Christianity by the people who painted them. They are in Christian tombs and catacombs.
Quote:
As for your ruling out of Josephus, that is of course your choice, but you're going to need a citation to convince me.
I reject as spurious interpolations the two references to Jesus in the Greek version of Josephus. There is a huge and copious literature on this. Start with http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10.htm by Earl Doherty, and then go on to as many more of the works on the topic available on the net, as you please. If I reject the Greek references, then a fortiori I reject the further interpolations found only in the Slavonic version.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 01:34 PM   #46
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 722
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I have little if any more faith in the "apocryphal" than in the canonical gospels. Here is an account of the resurrection from the Gospel of Peter: A sky tall Jesus and a talking Cross. An accurate description of Jesus? But not from before the adoption of Christianity by the people who painted them. They are in Christian tombs and catacombs. I reject as spurious interpolations the two references to Jesus in the Greek version of Josephus. There is a huge and copious literature on this. Start with http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10.htm by Earl Doherty, and then go on to as many more of the works on the topic available on the net, as you please. If I reject the Greek references, then a fortiori I reject the further interpolations found only in the Slavonic version.
The gospel of Peter is not one of those quoted, so why are you using a devotional verse from it to invalidate the descriptions in the works that are quoted? No-one is suggesting we should take any of the gospels as, well... gospel. What I'm suggesting is that the apocryphal gospels have not been translated, interpreted, re-translated and so on as much as the NT gospels, and as such are a better representation of what was originally written. In consistently describing Jesus as 'small and uncomely' and even 'ugly', those works are atleast attempting to describe something real.

Of course the art in Rome of Jesus was created by Christians, who else would have done it? There was a starting point for their image of Jesus, and since 'missionaries' from Judah/Judea/Palestine/The Holy Land were visiting Rome it is probably their words that provided that starting point. We can reasonably assume that such missionaries had reached Rome by this point, because if they hadn't, there wouldn't have been any Christians in Rome. Even if it were just returning soldiers, someone was telling people in Rome about Jesus.

I appreciate the link you provided, but Earl Doherty relies too much on rhetoric in his books for my taste. With that in mind, here is a link that presents both sides of the argument with regard to the Testimonium and uses many sources (including Doherty):-
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

It may indeed be the case that the contested passages are the work of Eusebius, but that alone does not invalidate The Capture of Jerusalem purely because it's a different work.

I offer here another link which discusses physical descriptions of Jesus, and provides some which we haven't discussed yet i.e Origen, Celsus, Justin Martyr and so on.:-
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0710JesusMyth.php

Cheers.
__________________
"To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet
"Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin
"A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is merely a superstition" - Me.
azzthom is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 01:54 PM   #47
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,547
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
What about the Vatican?
Technically most of the buildings and art treasures there are Renaissance, I think.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 02:03 PM   #48
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,547
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
You gotta love this. The people who allowed the shroud to be dated were so stupid that they didn't realize they were send labs material that was from a patched area? They think the people handling the shroud are a bunch of moronic clowns, apparently?
Like most believers it's the belief and the need to believe that drives them; irritating intrusions from reality must be explained away, no matter how stupid the "explanation", otherwise the believer experiences painful cognitive dissonance.
To rational people the "patch" theory is beyond stupid; the panel that selected the sampled area included textile experts and the shroud was examined specifically to avoid this potential problem.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 02:17 PM   #49
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,329
Azzthom

Your earlychristianwritings source contains an excellent assessment of the Slavonic Josephus
Quote:
Steve Mason states, "To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity." (p. 171) On the contrary, such audacity is paralleled by the extensive interpolations found in the Slavonic Josephus. Concerning the Slavonic Josephus, Meier writes:
The clearly unauthentic text is a long interpolation found only in the Old Russian (popularly known as the "Slavonic") version of The Jewish War, surviving in Russian and Rumanian manuscripts. This pasage is a wildly garbled condensation of various Gospel events, seasoned with the sort of bizarre legendary expansions found in apocryphal gospels and acts of the 2d and 3d centuries. Despite the spirited and ingenious attempts of Robert Eisler to defend the authenticity of much of the Jesus material in the Slavonic Jewish War, almost all critics today discount this theory. In more recent decades, G. A. Williamson stood in a hopeless minority when he tried to maintain the authenticity of this and similar interpolations, which obviously come from a Christian hand (though not necessarily an orthodox one).
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 02:50 PM   #50
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 722
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Azzthom

Your earlychristianwritings source contains an excellent assessment of the Slavonic Josephus
Agreed. That's one of the reasons I posted the link. This is about showing the Turin shroud to be a fake, and doing so based on evidence rather than opinion. If one of those pieces of evidence turns out to be invalid, the so be it. There are plenty of others. I even posted links earlier, that questioned the validity of the c14 dating, to provide the other side of that argument. We know the dating was valid, but in any question like this we need to examine all the evidence, rather than picking and choosing.

All I'm trying to show with the area we're discussing is that the man on the shroud is not Jesus. One of the areas I'm using is that the image on the shroud is a stylised image that didn't exist before 600AD, and didn't take the form shown on the shroud until about 800AD. All the earlier descriptions are consistent with each other and the man they describe is definitely NOT the man on the shroud. That's it. I have no vested interest in defending any particular text.

On a more personal note, the reason I've bothered responding to your posts is because you have taken the time to read the links I've posted, and you've put up good links of your own. I haven't been on the JREF forums for long, but I already know there are too many people who wouldn't have bothered. I would, therefore, have continued to respond even if you were arguing that the shroud was authentic.

To summarise, we agree that the shroud is a medieval fake. All we're arguing about is the validity of one area of evidence. And it's an interesting area.
__________________
"To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet
"Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin
"A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is merely a superstition" - Me.
azzthom is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 03:34 PM   #51
Pope130
Graduate Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,175
Originally Posted by Reno View Post
Jebus was.....Dr Who??
A Time Lord certainly, but much more likely "The Master". The Doctor avoids publicity.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 04:07 PM   #52
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,027
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
What about the Vatican?
I thought the only relic there was the Pope.
__________________
"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder
The Norseman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 05:21 PM   #53
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,156
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time.
This was the first time I saw it, so thanks. It's quite a theory.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 02:57 AM   #54
IanS
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,635
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
A number of groups claim that the area of the shroud sampled for 14C analysis was a medieval patch1 or otherwise contaminated2; this supposition is not generally accepted, nor is there significant scientific dispute on the dating itself.


[/size]

If you read the book by Harry Gove, who was one of the main radiocarbon scientists involved all through the ten years of wrangling with Vatican over precisely how the Vatican would allow their final favoured labs to perform the radiocarbon dating, he describes in detail how the sample was taken from the shroud, who was present, who was supervising, and exactly how and why they made quite sure to the satisfaction of everyone present, inc. all the Vatican and religious observers, that the section taken was definitely not from any repaired or patched area.

He also makes clear that the patched and repaired areas of the shroud were well known and extremely obvious. So nobody there, inc. all Vatican officials, were in any doubt that the sample taken was definitely NOT from any such patch or repair.

The only people who have subsequently tried to claim that the sample was, despite all the above, nevertheless from a later repaired part of the shroud, are the religious Shroud Groups such as STURP ... and, again, reading Gove's book, you will see in detail what a bunch of dishonest religiously driven individuals STURP are.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 03:56 AM   #55
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,083
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time.
So, the shroud doesn't look like it would if it were actually wrapped around a body because Jesus was hovering in a weightless environment between two rigidly-held parts of fabric within the event horizon of a black hole which created a new universe? That's...impressive reasoning. And there was me thinking that it was because it was a piece of artwork.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 03:57 AM   #56
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,083
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
A Time Lord certainly, but much more likely "The Master". The Doctor avoids publicity.
His first 8 or 9 incarnations did. Lately? Not so much.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 04:32 AM   #57
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,363
- I think you guys have raised 3 basic objections to the authenticity of the Shroud so far: 1) Jesus didn't look like that; 2) Roman crucifixions in the first century C.E. (A.D.) wouldn't produce a corpse with the foot wounds depicted on the Shroud; 3) the carbon dating.
- I will try to argue the other side, but would like someone to suggest the issue with which to begin. That way I can keep a narrow focus -- which I need to do. Thanks.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 05:05 AM   #58
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,329
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think you guys have raised 3 basic objections to the authenticity of the Shroud so far: ... - I will try to argue the other side, but would like someone to suggest the issue with which to begin. That way I can keep a narrow focus -- which I need to do. Thanks.
If you believe in the shroud's authenticity, then you must have positive reasons for this belief. Simply let us know what they are.

Also the burden of proof is on believers in anything, not on disbelievers. So the issue is: what evidence do you have in favour of the Shroud, apart from proclamations by the Church, which don't count.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 05:14 AM   #59
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,373
Actually, I'd add one more problem, which I'm sure other people know of, but it seems nobody got around to mentioning here yet:

It's not just one image of Jesus we're talking about. It's one in a whole GENRE of miraculous images of Jesus and Mary, namely the acheropoieta. We're not exactly talking about modern-style paraeidolia, where you're kinda seeing Jesus's face in a dog's ass or burnt tortilla. There were pretty detailed pictures of Jesus, either just the face, or complex scenes with Jesus on a throne and holding a scroll, or whatever, which were supposed to have either just appeared miraculously out of nowhere, or be painted by Jesus himself, or be Jesus's face transferred miraculously to some cloth.

In fact, even the last one was a mini-genre by itself. The shroud is not the only cloth that miraculously got Jesus's mug on it by contact. There was for example a similar cloth around with which supposedly some woman wiped Jesus's face, and miraculously it got a picture of Jesus on it. (And not just a bunch of smears, as would realistically happen.)

So, yeah, that trope wasn't invented by Warner Bros cartoons. Ending up with Porky Pig's or Elmer Fudd's face on a hot towel was first done with Jesus

In fact, even funnier, not only there was A veil of Veronica, with Jesus's face tranferred by wiping on it, there were dozens, and there still are a bunch of different ones around. The legend was so well known that such a miraculous cloth exist, that there was no shortage of people trying to sell you THE veil of Veronica, each with a different face on it. It's like there was an army of Jesuseseseses and Veronicas in some assembly-line kina operation of wiping cloth after cloth on the guy's face

And so eager were people to believe that some oil painting just appeared, or was brought by angels from heavens, that Heraclius for example rallied the Byzantines around such an image as their flag and pushed back the Arabs who had been winning before that religious stunt. You have to really believe in such an image to volunteer to go give your life for it.

But at any rate, it's just one out of several pictures in a genre. Not only it's not the only one in the world, but it's not even the only one that the Vatican has.

The problem though is that every single one of them has a different face of Jesus on it. Unless Jesus was some shapeshifter, they can't ALL be of Jesus. AT LEAST all but one must be forgeries, and frankly, at those odds, why would the shroud be it?

And at that, if we admit that the others are fake, it means that such miraculous images of Jesus were in fact routinely faked. Why would we assume that ANY of them is anything else than a forgery? They say that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing 10 times and expecting a different result. If you went through 9 miraculous images of Jesus and they're fakes, why would you assume that the 10'th is anything else than yet another fake?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th March 2012 at 05:25 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 05:28 AM   #60
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,329
Hans

To which it may be added that the shroud emerged in a period when Stakhanovite exertions were being performed in the relic-manufacturing industry. We have Chaucer's Pardoner's jar of pigs' bones; and we also have upwards of half a dozen examples of Jesus' foreskin in the possession of various European churches.

The Shroud fits neatly into this range of products.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 05:38 AM   #61
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,083
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
They say that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing 10 times and expecting a different result.
I don't know who "they" are, but "they" are clearly wrong.

If I roll a 6-sided die 9 times and get a number between 1-5 each time am I insane for expecting a 6 at some point? If I've started a thread on a forum and I refresh the page 9 times without seeing any new posts, am I insane to refresh it a 10th time? If I walk down the street and see 9 white people am I insane if I expect to see someone who's not white?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 05:43 AM   #62
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,373
Aye. And at least two different spears that poked Jesus, and they're even different models of spear. And enough skulls of some saints to make them some kind of anthro-hydra (now that's a furry genre waiting to happen) And even the Catholic Encyclopedia questions the authenticity of the at least thirty-something nails still venerated as the nails used to nail Jesus, because, you know, while it's still debated among theologians whether Jesus was crucified with 3 nails or with 4 nails, a whole thirty nails is out of the question. (And there's no telling how many more were sold to private persons across history.) And so on.

So, yeah, the same applies to any other type of relic. And it's quite unsurprising, really, that when a people were willing to buy any old bone or foreskin as holy, there were people willing to sell them as many bones and foreskins as they wanted.

I'm just mentioning the same applies to miraculous faces of Jesus on cloth too, because I'm under the impression that some people believe the shroud to be some unique thing, and hence totally not subject to the same problem. In reality, there are several such miraculously appeared faces of Jesus in the Vatican alone
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 05:52 AM   #63
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I don't know who "they" are, but "they" are clearly wrong.

If I roll a 6-sided die 9 times and get a number between 1-5 each time am I insane for expecting a 6 at some point? If I've started a thread on a forum and I refresh the page 9 times without seeing any new posts, am I insane to refresh it a 10th time? If I walk down the street and see 9 white people am I insane if I expect to see someone who's not white?
Well, more exactly "they" usually means "Benjamin Franklin", though that's a mis-attribution.

But I'd say the operative word there is "expect". Which is completely different from "admit the possibility of". Allowing the possibility that something will work differently is sane. Expecting a different result, in spite of every single prior data point going the other way, is pretty insane though, IMHO.

So, yes, if you are in a new town and the first 9 people you see are all white, chances are pretty good that the next one will be too. Allowing for the possibility of the next one being black is sane. Expecting that the next one will be black, e.g., because of some gambler's fallacy kind of belief about how probabilities work, is insane. Or at least stupid, if not truly insane.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 06:25 AM   #64
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,547
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
A Time Lord certainly, but much more likely "The Master". The Doctor avoids publicity.
The Meddling Monk perhaps?
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 06:27 AM   #65
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
If you believe in the shroud's authenticity, then you must have positive reasons for this belief. Simply let us know what they are.

Also the burden of proof is on believers in anything, not on disbelievers. So the issue is: what evidence do you have in favour of the Shroud, apart from proclamations by the Church, which don't count.
Thanks Craig -- just the opening I've been waiting for! The following would be my "opening statement." I'll get to some of the specifics in my next post if so desired.

I believe that — Contrary to current popular opinion — the preponderance of evidence clearly supports the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin… (By “authentic,” I mean only that the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus. “Authenticity,” here, does not require that anything “supernatural” be involved.)
Here’s a very brief summary of why I believe that the Shroud is authentic.

1. Despite what appears to be the current popular opinion, real evidence against Shroud of Turin authenticity is actually quite meagre. I.E.,
- 1.1. Enthusiastic skeptics do not realize how much their enthusiasm depends upon “authenticity” (in regard to the Shroud) requiring supernatural intervention — and consequently, do not realize just how meagre their real evidence is.
- 1.2. The only significant evidence against authenticity has been the 1988 carbon-dating which concluded that the 13th century marks the earliest possible origin of the Shroud. However, closer scrutiny since 1988 has indicated that the carbon dating, itself, was invalid…
- 1.3. The few other specific tests that would seem to indicate that the Shroud was not authentic can also be explained and discounted.
- 1.4. Numerous scientists have done “hands on” research on the Shroud itself (or, on “takings” from the Shroud), but aside from the scientists who did the Carbon dating, only one hands-on scientist has argued against authenticity… And closer scrutiny appears to invalidate that scientist’s methodology.
- 1.5. And then, of the numerous “peer-reviewed” articles on the Shroud, only two have argued against authenticity.

2. Whereas, the evidence for authenticity of the Shroud is … ‘incredible.’ I.E,
- 2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.
- 2.2. We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.
- 2.3. All relevant details of the Shroud fit with Biblical narrative. And where details depart from “tradition” (tradition not always reflecting, or being faithful to, Biblical narrative) they do fit precisely with recent scientific, archaeological and historical discoveries…
- 2.4. The documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century. However, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.

3. Summary of Summaries.
- 3.1. In my estimation, the evidence against authenticity is quite meagre, and the public is quite misled in that regard.
- 3.2. Clearly, the most likely explanation of the image and apparent bloodstains on the Shroud is that they constitute some kind of ancient “imprint” of the body of a human male who happens to have been tortured and crucified precisely as was the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
- 3.3. And, in that regard, the probability that this man could be someone other than the historical Jesus of Nazareth would appear to be extremely low…
- 3.4. Though, we still don’t know how the image was formed…
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 06:38 AM   #66
realpaladin
Master Poster
 
realpaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,466
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.
Ehm... http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...5943HL20091005
__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi
"But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin
---
Doron Shadmi's errors (9feb14): http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=3584
realpaladin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 06:48 AM   #67
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,083
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, more exactly "they" usually means "Benjamin Franklin", though that's a mis-attribution.

But I'd say the operative word there is "expect". Which is completely different from "admit the possibility of". Allowing the possibility that something will work differently is sane. Expecting a different result, in spite of every single prior data point going the other way, is pretty insane though, IMHO.

So, yes, if you are in a new town and the first 9 people you see are all white, chances are pretty good that the next one will be too. Allowing for the possibility of the next one being black is sane. Expecting that the next one will be black, e.g., because of some gambler's fallacy kind of belief about how probabilities work, is insane. Or at least stupid, if not truly insane.
I'd say that all depends on what else is known. If you're in a township in Trinidad and just happened to see 9 white people first, you'd still be justified in expecting to see a black person next. If you'd rolled 9 6s in a row on a die that you owned and knew wasn't weighted, you'd be justified in expecting not to roll a six on your next roll. If you'd drawn 9 spades from a well-shuffled deck of cards you'd be justified in expecting to draw a card other than a spade on your next go.

And so on. There's any number of situations in which repeating the same action can be expected to provide a different result than previously. Sweepingly declaring this to be stupid or insane isn't really justified.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 07:03 AM   #68
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,744
Jabba, I'd like to ask a different sort of question, if it's okay with you. I am a Christian. As such, as I hope you can understand, I am every bit as concerned over the prospect of people being fooled by a forgery as the average skeptical atheist.

Do you agree that if it should turn out that the Shroud of Turin is a forgery, that the act of forgery was blasphemous? And that in that case, do you agree that venerating the Shroud, however well-intentioned, would be mere idolatry? Or do you think some good comes, or could come, from treating a forgery as if it were a genuine miraculous relic?

No, those aren't the important questions yet, but they're explaining where I'm coming from, why I'm asking questions in the first place. I understand that you personally believe the Shroud of Turin is not a forgery.

The important questions I want to ask are about what if you are correct, and the Shroud genuinely bears an image of the incarnated Christ.

In that case, what does it mean? What does the Shroud tell us? What is it for? Why is it important?

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
Actually, most of my friends are pretty smart. So if they all jumped off a bridge I'd at least try to find out if they had a good reason.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 07:08 AM   #69
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Thanks Craig -- just the opening I've been waiting for! The following would be my "opening statement." I'll get to some of the specifics in my next post if so desired.

I believe that — Contrary to current popular opinion — the preponderance of evidence clearly supports the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin… (By “authentic,” I mean only that the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus. “Authenticity,” here, does not require that anything “supernatural” be involved.)
Here’s a very brief summary of why I believe that the Shroud is authentic.

1. Despite what appears to be the current popular opinion, real evidence against Shroud of Turin authenticity is actually quite meagre. I.E.,
Which is pretty unimportant actually, since that's a mix of your own argument from personal incredulity fallacy, and argument from ignorance fallacy. And the latter is actually the most important part. Nobody has to prove a negative to you. If anyone wants to claim the authenticity of the shroud, they have the burden of proof. The other side technically doesn't even have to make any arguments at all. Failure to support it as actually the real thing is enough reason to take it as a forgery. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 1.1. Enthusiastic skeptics do not realize how much their enthusiasm depends upon “authenticity” (in regard to the Shroud) requiring supernatural intervention — and consequently, do not realize just how meagre their real evidence is.
Irrelevant, and consisting essentially of a mix of appeal to motive fallacy and just a dash of thinly veiled bulverism. Stick to presenting the evidence, not speculations about what blinds everyone who doesn't see things your way. If something can be supported, then it will still be supportable regardless of what shortcomings or motives the other camp has, so please do so. Handwaving about why the others don't want to believe you, is fully irrelevant in logic.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 1.2. The only significant evidence against authenticity has been the 1988 carbon-dating which concluded that the 13th century marks the earliest possible origin of the Shroud. However, closer scrutiny since 1988 has indicated that the carbon dating, itself, was invalid…
BS. There have been three independent datings, and no valid argument has been made against the validity of either. All there has been were people just postulating it invalid for BS reasons.

At any rate, if you have actual evidence that would invalidate it, please present the actual evidence, not just postulate that it exists. Bare postulates have exactly zero value as evidence either way.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 1.3. The few other specific tests that would seem to indicate that the Shroud was not authentic can also be explained and discounted.
Again, show the evidence, don't just postulate that something must exist that invalidates whatever you don't want to believe.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 1.4. Numerous scientists have done “hands on” research on the Shroud itself (or, on “takings” from the Shroud), but aside from the scientists who did the Carbon dating, only one hands-on scientist has argued against authenticity… And closer scrutiny appears to invalidate that scientist’s methodology.
Again, don't just postulate. We have enough people on the board already who think they can just postulate reality as they'd like it to be. Provide names, references, etc. Just stating that you know there was only one and it was invalid, it's scrapping the bottom of the proverbial barrel even by apologist standards.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 1.5. And then, of the numerous “peer-reviewed” articles on the Shroud, only two have argued against authenticity.
And this is where things start to go from silly to sillier. What matters isn't the number of articles or number of people who believe something, what matters is who has the evidence. The Argumentum Ad Populum or its "argumentum ad numerum" variant, are fallacies for a reason.

[quote=Jabba;8091657]2. Whereas, the evidence for authenticity of the Shroud is … ‘incredible.’ I.E,
- 2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.{/QUOTE]

Well, blimey, if it's not the return of the argument from ignorance Something must be true, because you don't know or refuse to accept the other explanations. Heh.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 2.2. We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.
Name some, and why do you think someone wouldn't be able to do that at the time. Again, don't just postulate that something somewhere must exist that makes you right. Show your evidence.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 2.3. All relevant details of the Shroud fit with Biblical narrative. And where details depart from “tradition” (tradition not always reflecting, or being faithful to, Biblical narrative) they do fit precisely with recent scientific, archaeological and historical discoveries…
Evidence? Plus, it being consistent with the narrative as they told it in the 14'th century, instead of how we know the Romans actually did a crucifixion (e.g., the holes in the feet), is exactly what makes it likely a forgery.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 2.4. The documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century. However, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.
Which clues? Evidence? Again, just postulating that somewhere something unspecified exists that makes your beliefs right, is easy. Everyone can do that.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
3. Summary of Summaries.
- 3.1. In my estimation, the evidence against authenticity is quite meagre, and the public is quite misled in that regard.
Again, it would be fully irrelevant and a textbook case of argument from ignorance. What you need to do is support its authenticity, not just sit back and proclaim that you don't really like the refutation. When the burden of proof is on your side, you don't have that luxury.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 3.2. Clearly, the most likely explanation of the image and apparent bloodstains on the Shroud is that they constitute some kind of ancient “imprint” of the body of a human male who happens to have been tortured and crucified precisely as was the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
Sorry, unless you actually support it, just throwing in a "clearly" won't magically make some postulates true.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 3.3. And, in that regard, the probability that this man could be someone other than the historical Jesus of Nazareth would appear to be extremely low…
Really? Even if you actually found the shroud of some crucified guy from the 1'st century BC -- as opposed to something dated to the late middle ages -- exactly how do you figure that out of tens of thousands of people crucified by the Romans in that century alone, the one you have has to be specifically Jesus's? Why not the shroud of some bandit? Even your bible does say there were two bandits crucified with him, so why not one of those? Why not one of the many people taken down from the cross alive and who died later of their wounds anyway? (IIRC Josephus tells us of a couple of such people, for example.)

And I'm actually glad that you brought this point up, because it's one of the points that gets just glossed over. Most of the pseudo-support for it being Jesus's is really really lame. It takes the form of basically, "It has the proportions of a human, therefore it's Jesus."

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 3.4. Though, we still don’t know how the image was formed…
And more of the same argument from personal ignorance. Actually the presence of paint gives us a pretty good idea how the image was formed. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it a big mystery.

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th March 2012 at 07:24 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 07:22 AM   #70
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I'd say that all depends on what else is known. If you're in a township in Trinidad and just happened to see 9 white people first, you'd still be justified in expecting to see a black person next. If you'd rolled 9 6s in a row on a die that you owned and knew wasn't weighted, you'd be justified in expecting not to roll a six on your next roll. If you'd drawn 9 spades from a well-shuffled deck of cards you'd be justified in expecting to draw a card other than a spade on your next go.

And so on. There's any number of situations in which repeating the same action can be expected to provide a different result than previously. Sweepingly declaring this to be stupid or insane isn't really justified.
I'd argue though that at least some of those either still are wrong, or aren't the same action over and over again. Drawing a card from a deck of 52 cards, out of which 13 spades, is subject to some pretty radically different probabilities than drawing a card from a deck of 43 cards, out of which there are only 4 spades left. The former has a 0.25 probability to draw a spade, the latter only 0.11 probability.

More importantly, you'll notice that all your examples included some pretty perfect knowledge of the problem as a justification for that expectation. Which is not really what that silly saying is supposed to be about in the first place.

Sure, if you KNOW that a die is perfectly balanced, or you KNOW exactly what cards are in a deck and that it's perfectly random, then you can have more accurate expectations based on that perfect knowledge than based on past data points. And really, the same would apply to these shrouds too. If you knew exactly how many shrouds there are total, and how many of them aren't fake, you could have some pretty accurate expectations as to how likely one of them is to be fake.

But commentaries about someone's ability to learn from past experience, which really is what that quip is about, are really relevant when that past experience is all you have as a baseline estimate.

E.g., if you're a publisher and give some money to a game company to make a fourth MMO after they screwed up 3 out of 3 MMOs in a row, and in 2 out of those 3 cases they screwed up quite spectacularly, you don't have the perfect knowledge of what their probability is to screw up again. And arguably such knowledge isn't even possible to have. At that point, you just show whether you can learn something from past data points, or you don't. That quip calls you insane if you don't.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 07:40 AM   #71
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,710
Jabba in case HansMusterman reply is TL;DR for you :
1) most of your point 1 if not all are full of fallacy, and do not consdier where the burden of proof is (not on the sketpic contrary to what you seem to think).
2) you have no provided evidence that the CD test are invalid, and indeed the way they were conducted the sample preleved and how the objection came only AFTER the result were known , there is no evidence that the CD dating is invalid
3) basically you have provided no argument supporting your assertion, you jsut asserted.

I predict now that you will go into the usual BS argument of "but the shroud sample were taken on repair patch" or some other "fire contaminated the sample" BS argument, both of which have long been debunked.

But please , present your argument.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 07:41 AM   #72
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,710
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
E.g., if you're a publisher and give some money to a game company to make a fourth MMO after they screwed up 3 out of 3 MMOs in a row, and in 2 out of those 3 cases they screwed up quite spectacularly, you don't have the perfect knowledge of what their probability is to screw up again. And arguably such knowledge isn't even possible to have. At that point, you just show whether you can learn something from past data points, or you don't. That quip calls you insane if you don't.
Ha, I see you are acquainted with FUNCOM .
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 08:04 AM   #73
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,329
Jabba,

You state that all relevant details of the Shroud fit with Biblical narrative, but also that "authenticity" does not require that anything "supernatural" be involved.

Do you mean that the Biblical narrative is not an account of miraculous or supernatural events? So are you asserting that Jesus was not dead when entombed, but simply recovered from physical trauma and walked away, sharing the good fortune of the surviving crucifixees correctly remembered by HansMustermann as appearing in Josephus? Or did he die, and his companions removed his body? Or did he just rot away in the tomb, and the resurrection story is false?

But if you believe Jesus was really dead, and really came alive again, then you believe something "supernatural" related to the "authenticity" of the Shroud.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 08:48 AM   #74
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
Ha, I see you are acquainted with FUNCOM .
Aye, I actually wrote the whole paragraph with Funcom instead of "a game company", then thought it's a pointless derail and edited it
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 08:50 AM   #75
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,949
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Could you direct me to the other descriptions of Jesus? I mean descriptions which might have originated directly or indirectly with people who knew him, and not those derived from visions vouchsafed unto Theresa of Avila, Catherine Emmerich or their like.
He walks on water and raises the dead and he's hard to kill.
tsig is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 09:01 AM   #76
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,083
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'd argue though that at least some of those either still are wrong, or aren't the same action over and over again. Drawing a card from a deck of 52 cards, out of which 13 spades, is subject to some pretty radically different probabilities than drawing a card from a deck of 43 cards, out of which there are only 4 spades left. The former has a 0.25 probability to draw a spade, the latter only 0.11 probability.
The fact that the probabilities are different doesn't mean that it's not the same action, it just means that performing the same action is likely to produce different results. Excluding situations where performing the same action will likely produce different results is begging the question.

Quote:
More importantly, you'll notice that all your examples included some pretty perfect knowledge of the problem as a justification for that expectation. Which is not really what that silly saying is supposed to be about in the first place.
If there are meant to be exceptions, then those exceptions should be specified. If not, then the "silly saying" doesn't really accurately reflect reality, does it?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 09:16 AM   #77
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,329
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
He walks on water and raises the dead and he's hard to kill.
OK, but was he more than 5 feet 1 inch tall? That's what people really want to know. Well, some people anyway.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 09:43 AM   #78
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
If there are meant to be exceptions, then those exceptions should be specified. If not, then the "silly saying" doesn't really accurately reflect reality, does it?
I'd say that no wisecrack ever is particularly accurate, so, yes, this one isn't either. I mean, after all, if insanity was that easy to define accurately, we wouldn't need all those manuals and medical schools

I would have thought that part would be rather obvious, but apparently there's always someone who feels that they're the only person in the world who figured out that a joke isn't an actual axiom, or that an metaphor isn't an identity, or such, and needs to enlighten us all about that
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 10:07 AM   #79
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,083
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I mean, after all, if insanity was that easy to define accurately, we wouldn't need all those manuals and medical schools
Kind of my point, really.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 10:23 AM   #80
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,547
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I believe that — Contrary to current popular opinion — the preponderance of evidence clearly supports the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin…
You are free to hold whatever opinion you want, just like flat earthers are free to believe that particular nonsense.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
(By “authentic,” I mean only that the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus.
You could start with some evidence that the biblical Jesus actually existed......

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
“Authenticity,” here, does not require that anything “supernatural” be involved.)
Really? The "Biblical Jesus" was the alleged offspring of a deity, performed acts contrary to physical laws and returned after death; that's pretty supernatural.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 1.1. Enthusiastic skeptics do not realize how much their enthusiasm depends upon “authenticity” (in regard to the Shroud) requiring supernatural intervention — and consequently, do not realize just how meagre their real evidence is.
Is this supposed to actually mean something?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1.2. The only significant evidence against authenticity has been the 1988 carbon-dating which concluded that the 13th century marks the earliest possible origin of the Shroud. However, closer scrutiny since 1988 has indicated that the carbon dating, itself, was invalid…
Utterly untrue. There has never been any scientific reason to doubt the accuracy of the 14C dating of the cloth; believers have distorted facts and lied to try and create such doubt but that's all.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1.3. The few other specific tests that would seem to indicate that the Shroud was not authentic can also be explained and discounted.
Feel tree to try and do so.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1.4. Numerous scientists have done “hands on” research on the Shroud itself (or, on “takings” from the Shroud), but aside from the scientists who did the Carbon dating, only one hands-on scientist has argued against authenticity… And closer scrutiny appears to invalidate that scientist’s methodology.
A carefully selected group of believers, and limited access, is not the way to carry out proper investigation.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1.5. And then, of the numerous “peer-reviewed” articles on the Shroud, only two have argued against authenticity.
Untrue.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2. Whereas, the evidence for authenticity of the Shroud is … ‘incredible.’
Quite literally true, it is far beyond credibility.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.
Also untrue.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2.2. We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.
Evidence for your assertion please.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2.3. All relevant details of the Shroud fit with Biblical narrative. And where details depart from “tradition” (tradition not always reflecting, or being faithful to, Biblical narrative) they do fit precisely with recent scientific, archaeological and historical discoveries…
Again untrue.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2.4. The documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century. However, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.
There is no credible historical evidence of an earlier origin. When the shroud first "emerged" (soon after it was faked) various authorities, inside and outside the church, condemned iot as a fake.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
3.1. In my estimation, the evidence against authenticity is quite meagre, and the public is quite misled in that regard.
Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
3.2. Clearly, the most likely explanation of the image and apparent bloodstains on the Shroud is that they constitute some kind of ancient “imprint” of the body of a human male who happens to have been tortured and crucified precisely as was the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
No the most likely explanation, and the only one supported by actual evidence, is that the cloth is a medieval fake created to separate the gullible from their money.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
3.3. And, in that regard, the probability that this man could be someone other than the historical Jesus of Nazareth would appear to be extremely low…
You have failed to show any evidence for this assertion. Your unsupported opinion is without value. Given that any historical Jesus, if he existed at all, would have been a long decayed corpse when the shroud was created your explanation is rubbish.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
3.4. Though, we still don’t know how the image was formed…
Several mechanisms have been posited.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.