Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theli · 04-07-2002, 02:29 PM

Oh why must some people always resort to stone throwing and unsults to make their point?

360 Replies. Impressive! Longest topic on this subject yet.

Well, I'll shut up now.

Tercel · 04-07-2002, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goliath:
However, you said something that caught my attention.

Suppose, for the moment, that the shroud indeed is about 2,000 years old, and that it did belong to Christ. Note, of course, that these two assertions have yet to be proven, but suppose they are true.

You said:
The image on the shroud was not generated naturally

Unproven assertion.

I made no such assertion.
If you are referring to my most recent post, I was talking about:
"The idea that the image on the shroud was not generated naturally..."

I in no way asserted it was true that the image on the shroud is unnatural. As far as I am concerned, the naturalness or otherwise of the image on the shroud is far from proven.

Quote:

Consider the following conditions:

1. The image on the shroud has no natural cause.

2. The image on the shroud is a direct result of whatever supernatural process raised Jesus from the dead.

I don't see how 1. implies 2. Could you please provide a proof?

2 does not necessarily follow from 1. However, it would seem to probabilistically follow.
If the image on the shroud has no natural cause, then it has a supernatural cause. Using Occam's Razor (thus not multiplying those supernatural causes unnecessarily) we obtain the result that in such a case the image was most likely caused by the same supernatural cause which was involved in the event which the image on the shroud relates to.

Tercel · 04-07-2002, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by britinusa:
The idea that the image on the shroud was not generated naturally (and hence is a direct result of whatever supernatural process raised Jesus from the dead) would seem to be extremely threatening to atheism.

Un-fucking-believable! This thread began on March 1st, is 14 pages and over 300 posts long, and at the end of it all we have Tercel giving us this bullshit!

How does what I said warrent this sort of a response?
If the Shroud was authentic then surely it would be threatening to atheism? How does stating the obvious count as "bullshit"?

Quote:

We've talked about carbon-14 dating, "biofilm", and countless other natural scientific variables, and for what? Tercel has rendered this entire thread a waste of everyone's time.

How exactly?
All I see here is you ranting rubbish at me and I haven't a clue why.

Quote:

If another team examined the shroud today and dated it back to a week last tuesday, xians can simply shrug their shoulders and say "Hey, god made it appear only ten days old." It wouldn't matter to Tercel or any xian of his ilk if a thousand teams examined the shroud and every one of them declared it a 14th century fake, because how the fuck can you date something with miraculous properties?

You're crazy.

Quote:

It creases me when xians attempt to debate on a rational, scientific, naturalistic level, but when the going gets tough, they can switch to the supernatural level without a blush, and expect us to play along.
If you're forced to introduce miracles, you've lost the debate. At least around here. This isn't some Mickey Mouse fundie forum, you know.

Are you saying that if we refuse to a priori assume that the Shroud is absolutely not of the supernatural you'll simply declare us to have lost the debate?

leonarde · 04-07-2002, 04:06 PM

You know the previous couple of posts reminded me
of something: the word "natural" has AT LEAST two
(2)antonyms, depending on how "natural" is meant:

1)if "natural" is being contrasted to "supernatural" then that is one thing.

2)if "natural" is being contrasted to "man-made"
or "artificial", or "designed" then that is quite
another.

MOST of the anti-authenticity people claim that
the S of Turin (here I mean the Image of the Man
thereof) is the product of human hands/paints etc.
Or to put it another way, the S of Turin is the
result of human Intelligent Design.

What struck me about this back in the fall, when
I first started a thread in the ARN forum was:
this REALLY changes a lot of alignments! What do
I mean by that?

Well ARN is a forum dedicated to Intelligent Design: the concept (with many varying hypotheses)
that some Designer originated life in the universe
and either gave that life the ability to evolve
(speciate over and over)OR periodically created
new forms. [Some evos claim that ID is just a slick version of creationism but I won't get into
that can of worms here].

At least one poster at ARN who was an evo(lutionist) was thoroughly confused by the whole thing: he wanted to both claim the S of Turin was a forgery AND to claim that the pro-authenticity people were continuing to claim
intelligent design. I tried pointing out that forgery IS a form of intelligent design. He clammed up.....

lpetrich · 04-07-2002, 05:39 PM

On the subject of natural vs. supernatural, I propose this alternative supernatural origin for the Shroud of Turin:

It was created by the old Germanic god Loki as a dirty trick on those who are very willing to fall for artifacts of this type.

leonarde · 04-07-2002, 06:14 PM

From "Forensic Pathology" (second edition) by
Bernard Knight CBE, MD, DSc(Hon), MRCP, FRCPath,
DMI(Path), Barrister. Professor of Forensic Pathology, Wales Institute of Forensic Medicine,
University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff,
Wales, UK; Consultant Forensic Pathologist to the
Home Office, UK. (1996)Holder, London.

Chapter 14 Suffocation and 'asphyxia', page 360:
under heading "Postural asphyxia" [first 4 paragraphs deleted]

Quote:

Inversion [postural asphyxia]may occur during torture: crucifixion has
an element of postural asphyxia. In the case of
inverted crucifixion, as in the death of St. Peter, it would be the major factor, as inspiration would be impeded by the weight of abdominal viscera upon the diaphragm.

That is the ONLY mention of crucifixion in the 636 page text. If you find anything contrary in YOUR forensic pathology text let us know!

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

leonarde · 04-07-2002, 06:28 PM

Theli,
Sorry for my part in what must be an unpleasant
read for you: I lost my temper.

Cheers!

Goliath · 04-07-2002, 07:55 PM

Tercel,

Quote:

made no such assertion.
If you are referring to my most recent post, I was talking about:
"The idea that the image on the shroud was not generated naturally..."
I in no way asserted it was true that the image on the shroud is unnatural. As far as I am concerned, the naturalness or otherwise of the image on the shroud is far from proven.

My apologies. I misread what you posted.

Quote:

2 does not necessarily follow from 1.

Agreed.

Quote:

However, it would seem to probabilistically follow.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

If the image on the shroud has no natural cause, then it has a supernatural cause.

Agreed, but this statement is more or less worthless until you prove that the image has no natural cause.

Quote:

Using Occam's Razor (thus not multiplying those supernatural causes unnecessarily) we obtain the result that in such a case the image was most likely caused by the same supernatural cause which was involved in the event which the image on the shroud relates to.

Again, "most likely" is irrelevant. Granting for the moment that the image is not naturally caused, you would still have to either directly show that the cause was your god or rule out every single other supernatural possibility--conceivable and inconceivable.

Sincerely,

Goliath

lpetrich · 04-07-2002, 10:02 PM

I wonder why nobody has tried to disprove the Loki theory of the origin of the Shroud of Turin.

The Loki theory could even account for what leonarde's sources claim to observe; in fact, if Loki exists, he must be chuckling over how those Shroud enthusiasts have fallen so completely for his handiwork.

hyzer · 04-08-2002, 06:38 AM

Why does the shroud have a front and back image, but no side images? From the images on the shroud it appears that the fabric was laid on a flat surface, the body was laid out (creating the rear image) and then the fabric was doubled over the top and laid across the front of the body (creating the front image). There does not appear any evidence that the fabric was further wrapped (since I would expect some side image, or at least distortion of the front and rear image). Any ideas?

Why does the hair on the side of the face appear so stiff? The hair is not matted down at all. Why?

Why are the front images and the rear images distinct rather than connected?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-07-2002, 02:29 PM	#361
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	Oh why must some people always resort to stone throwing and unsults to make their point? 360 Replies. Impressive! Longest topic on this subject yet. Well, I'll shut up now.

04-07-2002, 04:06 PM	#364
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	You know the previous couple of posts reminded me of something: the word "natural" has AT LEAST two (2)antonyms, depending on how "natural" is meant: 1)if "natural" is being contrasted to "supernatural" then that is one thing. 2)if "natural" is being contrasted to "man-made" or "artificial", or "designed" then that is quite another. MOST of the anti-authenticity people claim that the S of Turin (here I mean the Image of the Man thereof) is the product of human hands/paints etc. Or to put it another way, the S of Turin is the result of human Intelligent Design. What struck me about this back in the fall, when I first started a thread in the ARN forum was: this REALLY changes a lot of alignments! What do I mean by that? Well ARN is a forum dedicated to Intelligent Design: the concept (with many varying hypotheses) that some Designer originated life in the universe and either gave that life the ability to evolve (speciate over and over)OR periodically created new forms. [Some evos claim that ID is just a slick version of creationism but I won't get into that can of worms here]. At least one poster at ARN who was an evo(lutionist) was thoroughly confused by the whole thing: he wanted to both claim the S of Turin was a forgery AND to claim that the pro-authenticity people were continuing to claim intelligent design. I tried pointing out that forgery IS a form of intelligent design. He clammed up.....

04-07-2002, 05:39 PM	#365
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	On the subject of natural vs. supernatural, I propose this alternative supernatural origin for the Shroud of Turin: It was created by the old Germanic god Loki as a dirty trick on those who are very willing to fall for artifacts of this type.

04-07-2002, 06:28 PM	#367
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Theli, Sorry for my part in what must be an unpleasant read for you: I lost my temper. Cheers!

04-07-2002, 10:02 PM	#369
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I wonder why nobody has tried to disprove the Loki theory of the origin of the Shroud of Turin. The Loki theory could even account for what leonarde's sources claim to observe; in fact, if Loki exists, he must be chuckling over how those Shroud enthusiasts have fallen so completely for his handiwork.

04-08-2002, 06:38 AM	#370
hyzer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: philadelphia Posts: 1,844	Why does the shroud have a front and back image, but no side images? From the images on the shroud it appears that the fabric was laid on a flat surface, the body was laid out (creating the rear image) and then the fabric was doubled over the top and laid across the front of the body (creating the front image). There does not appear any evidence that the fabric was further wrapped (since I would expect some side image, or at least distortion of the front and rear image). Any ideas? Why does the hair on the side of the face appear so stiff? The hair is not matted down at all. Why? Why are the front images and the rear images distinct rather than connected?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.