- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYour mixing up responses, You asked me to 'explain' the shroud, and whatever.
Well, perhaps you should show your evidence to the scientists that actually examined it and determined that it is not a fraud.
And I said I had done so, I did not say I proved it was a fraud...
Partly because that will depend on what you mean by fraud.
My point, was that this discussion/thread is about people claiming personal experiences
of the supernatural, including those of the bible god, as evidence and reason to believe,
for themselves and others. And why [among other things] the fact that our memories
are so unreliable means that we cannot trust them enough to claim knowledge of the
supernatural without sufficient external evidence. That personal experience will not suffice.
And whether or not the shroud is valid evidence or not [it isn't] for the existence of god/JC.
It's still claimed to be evidence rather than personal experience with god/JC.
And is thus not relevant to this topic.
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeScientists that actually examined the Shroud of Turin say it could not be a forgery.
Your mixing up responses, You asked me to 'explain' the shroud, and whatever.
And I said I had done so, I did not say I proved it was a fraud...
Partly because that will depend on what you mean by fraud.
My point, was that this discussion/thread is about people claiming personal experiences
of the supernatural, including those of the bible g ...[text shortened]... evidence rather than personal experience with god/JC.
And is thus not relevant to this topic.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2076443/Turin-Shroud-created-flash-supernatural-light.html
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsAgain, not relevant to the thread.
Scientists that actually examined the Shroud of Turin say it could not be a forgery.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2076443/Turin-Shroud-created-flash-supernatural-light.html
Also, not an accurate account of what the scientists said.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100125247/the-turin-shroud-is-fake-get-over-it/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100126480/the-shroud-of-turin-forgery-or-divine-a-scientist-writes/
These scientists, do not claim that the shroud is, or could ever be proven to be, the burial cloth of JC.
Without reviewing the research, I can't say if they are making any logical mistakes in their analysis
which is always possible.
But they are not claiming that the shroud WAS made by a UV pulse, only that a UV pulse can create
SOME of the observed features of the image. Not all of them however. And even if the image COULD
have been made by a UV pulse, that doesn't mean it WAS created by such.
I will also note that it's very difficult to claim that forgers couldn't have made something when we don't
know how it was made.
I thus feel pretty damn confident saying that that particular claim is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Thus demonstrating that even scientists are human and make mistakes which is why science relies
on evidence and not arguments from authority*.
And I find it ironic** that you who scorns so much of science immediately try to claim legitimacy from
science the moment there is any hint that a result might go 'your way'.
* Another fallacy.
**And hypocritical.
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeNow, scientists at the University of Padua in Italy have used infrared light and spectroscopy (the study of a physical object's interaction with electromagnetic radiation) to examine the shroud and found that it's actually much older, the Telegraph reports.
Again, not relevant to the thread.
Also, not an accurate account of what the scientists said.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100125247/the-turin-shroud-is-fake-get-over-it/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100126480/the-shroud-of-turin-forgery-or-divine-a-scientist-writes/
These scientists, do not cla ...[text shortened]... there is any hint that a result might go 'your way'.
* Another fallacy.
**And hypocritical.
In his recent book, "Il Mistero della Sindone," translated as "The Mystery of the Shroud," (Rizzoli, 2013), Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical engineering at Padua University, said his analysis proves the shroud dates from 280 B.C. to A.D. 220 ― meaning it existed during Jesus' lifetime, the Guardian reports.
http://www.livescience.com/28276-shroud-of-turin.html
Based on the already shaky premise that forgers accidentally and spectacularly succeeded in their task, this hypothesis is hopelessly fraught with difficulties. It can be unequivocally rejected, and with it any possibility that the Shroud is the product of a forgery attempt. As Donald Lynn (quoted in Rinaldi 1979:14) of STURP concluded, "it would be miraculous if it were a forgery."
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy can't you understand that I don't care about the damn shroud because even
Now, scientists at the University of Padua in Italy have used infrared light and spectroscopy (the study of a physical object's interaction with electromagnetic radiation) to examine the shroud and found that it's actually much older, the Telegraph reports.
In his recent book, "Il Mistero della Sindone," translated as "The Mystery of the Shroud," (Rizzo ...[text shortened]... n (quoted in Rinaldi 1979:14) of STURP concluded, "it would be miraculous if it were a forgery."
in the unbelievably unlikely event it was genuinely a shroud wrapped around JC...
That still doesn't prove he was the son of god, or had supernatural abilities, or
anything else you want it to prove?
If you cannot [and you obviously cannot] understand why I don't give a damn,
can you at least grasp THAT I don't give a damn, and stop filling my thread up
with off topic nonsense I am not going to respond to.
If you want another pointless discussion of the shroud, start your own damn thread.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by KellyJayUm, Yes, people should be more rational and accept thing only with sufficient justification...
There are quite a few things that people just accept as true even if they
have never seen it, they only need the smallest excuse.
I'm still not sure what your point is, or where you are going with this?
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhy does seeing the truth about the Shroud make you seem so angry?
Why can't you understand that I don't care about the damn shroud because even
in the unbelievably unlikely event it was genuinely a shroud wrapped around JC...
That still doesn't prove he was the son of god, or had supernatural abilities, or
anything else you want it to prove?
If you cannot [and you obviously cannot] understand why I don't give ...[text shortened]... spond to.
If you want another pointless discussion of the shroud, start your own damn thread.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWell first it's not 'the truth'.
Why does seeing the truth about the Shroud make you seem so angry?
Second, I have explained in depth to you why the shroud isn't evidence for
your religion even if it was what you claim it to be and not a medieval forgery.
And what pisses me off is that you completely ignore the fact that I have explained
at length why it doesn't qualify as evidence, and thus why I don't care, and yet you
still spam the same stupid claims about it at me anyway.
And finally... Because it is completely off topic in this thread, and I would like to stay
on topic.
Can you not wrap your brain around the fact that the Shroud of Turin is not a personal
experience with god or the supernatural. It's not something we remember, it's something
we have in a museum / reliquary or whatever.
Given that this thread is about how our faulty memories mean that we cannot trust them
when it comes to extraordinary claims for which we have no other evidence...
How is posting about the shroud in any possible way remotely relevant?
That was a rhetorical question... It isn't in any way relevant.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadProbably, but I'm trying to get him to actually say that, if that is what he believes.
He believes you are just as irrational as he is, and that that excuses his irrationality.
I was expecting something about believing in an old Earth or Evolution as being
'faith based' as that is usually how they roll...
But I generally prefer people to actually say what they mean clearly before responding
rather than guess/assume what they mean... Because that's usually where I get into
trouble.
Originally posted by googlefudgeFirst, it is the truth.
Well first it's not 'the truth'.
Second, I have explained in depth to you why the shroud isn't evidence for
your religion even if it was what you claim it to be and not a medieval forgery.
And what pisses me off is that you completely ignore the fact that I have explained
at length why it doesn't qualify as evidence, and thus why I don't care, ...[text shortened]... ssible way remotely relevant?
That was a rhetorical question... It isn't in any way relevant.
Second, it is evidence for belief and your explanation was a lie.
Finally...it is eyewitness testimony from modern scientists that have examined the Shroud of Turin and determined that it is not a fake. That means it is real.
If some eyewitness testimony was not reliable, then all eyewitness testimony in a court of law would and should not be allowed. Certainly you can't be saying our whole court system is bogus and all those convicted in which eyewitness testimony was given should be set free because it is all unreliable.
Maybe, some eyewitness testimony is not reliable, but it is misleading to make a blanket statement like you did to rule out what goes against your belief system. This is why I think my posting on the Shroud of Turin is relevant.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYes but you are a moron who has no comprehension of logic or reason
First, it is the truth.
Second, it is evidence for belief and your explanation was a lie.
Finally...it is eyewitness testimony from modern scientists that have examined the Shroud of Turin and determined that it is not a fake. That means it is real.
If some eyewitness testimony was not reliable, then all eyewitness testimony in a court of law would ...[text shortened]... s against your belief system. This is why I think my posting on the Shroud of Turin is relevant.
and that is why you believe these things.
So as I say...
If you want another pointless discussion about the stupid shroud,
Do it in your own damn thread, and get your fat ass out of mine.
Was that clear enough for you?
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes but you are a moron who has no comprehension of logic or reason
and that is why you believe these things.
So as I say...
If you want another pointless discussion about the stupid shroud,
Do it in your own damn thread, and get your fat ass out of mine.
Was that clear enough for you?
If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
(1 Peter 4:14 NIV)