Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Datheron · 04-01-2002, 05:18 PM

Leonade,

There is such a type of argument whereby one hopes to win simply by overwhelming the opposition with quantity, authority and volume that is considered fallacious - Koy and myself have already identified this as "argument from authority".

Doing all sorts of research, as you have done here, and posting I would estimate up to 7 pages of links does not make for a superior argument unless you can analyze such statements as well as refute objections to those arguments that you have put forward. Most of what I see from you is the ruthless plowing through of counterarguments with more links and continued rambling; I do not believe even the lurkers will be entertained by such tactics.

leonarde · 04-01-2002, 06:41 PM

Datherton,
I am NOT trying to "entertain" ANYONE here: this is a thread about the Shroud of Turin. The
64,000 dollar question about it is: authenticity.
That has at least 3 elements:
1)does it have a image of a true victim of crucifixion on it?
2)does the Shroud (and PERHAPS the image)go back
to ancient or merely medieval times?
3)is the Man of the Shroud Jesus?

All of my posts here have had SOMETHING to do with
one or all of these questions: directly or indirectly.

On pages 3 and 4 I stated that the image had 3D
elements. That simple statement by me drew a bunch
of sneering laughs. So I provided a URL to substantiate it.

One early participant stated that the "obvious
forgery" was proved by debunking the direct contact/vaporography methods of possible image-
formation. So I pointed out that no authenticity
advocate of any knowledge of the last 20 years
has supported those theories: I cited and quoted
from Nickell's book (Nickell being an authenticity
OPPONENT).

Spin raised the linguistic question: the koine
Greek word(s) not being consistent with a single
one-piece burial cloth. I responded based on what
I remembered about the language question, mentioning among other things that the Sudarium and the Shroud together made at least 2 burial
cloths.

Time after time, when someone raised an objection,
I tried to respond in a courteous manner. I did
supply a LOT of URLs but that was NOT to "defeat"
any opponent, it was to have a ready reference for
those who were not satisfied with the admittedly cursory examination that such threads generally
produce.

The truth or falsity about the Shroud of Turin,
like so many other things, can only be determined
by looking at the evidence in DETAIL. Some of the
URLs (and I think 6 to 8 WERE supplied by the other side) can lead the curious to a deeper appreciation of the true nature of the controversies. (There are a few TRUE controversies
about it but for the most part we have barely grazed them).

Personally, I am quite satisfied with my exchanges
with Jack the Bodiless, wherein I gave the reasons
why authenticity is MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely than a forgery. Whether Jack or anyone else is satisfied with my responses I cannot say; I can
only answer as best I can.

Lastly, my esteemed opponent Koy: I'm sure if I
were talking to him about the Yankees or some neutral subject we could have a decent conversation but his tone in the first 4 or 5 pages was SO shrill, his condemnation of things
he clearly didn't understand so vehement, his posts so long and unsubstantiated, that I finally
gave up on him more or less entirely.

I HAD hoped that the exchanges here would have
been more courteous but I think I came in a distant second in the snide remarks race.

Cheers!

hyzer · 04-02-2002, 04:04 AM

It looks like a rubbing.

The image on the shroud looks like it was draped very carefully across a low relief sculpture.

I see no evidence that this supposed burial cloth “wrapped” anything.

Your 3 elements:

1. the shroud has an image, one can “see” anything in the image that one wants to (like those who see Elvis’ image in marmalade on the breakfast toast – hey! It happed to me).

2. the shroud has be dated to the 1300’s.

3. I am sure that the artist is trying to depict Jesus.

A lurker.

leonarde · 04-02-2002, 04:44 AM

Posted by hyzer:

Quote:

It looks like a rubbing.
The image on the shroud looks like it was draped very carefully across a low relief sculpture.

I asked for evidence that the
Shroud image was the product of a "rubbing" and
your "evidence" is that it "looks like a rubbing".
Do you realize how NON-evidentiary that it? Especially in light of the 3 URLs I provided in
the early pages of this thread, URLs written by
Isabel Piczek, an art expert, in which she goes
into painstaking detail (only a fraction of which
I copy and pasted here) about why the Shroud is
NOT a work of art of any kind? Opinions are wonderful things to have but only get you a cup
of coffee, and that merely in Koy's New York.
[Posted by hyzer]:

Quote:

I see no evidence that this supposed burial cloth �wrapped� anything.

And have you read in
full ANY of the documents which I provided in these pages? The findings of the STURP would be
the most useful as a general guide.
If one averts one's eyes to it, of course no one
will see any evidence.
Just because one joins a discussion on page 10
DOESN'T mean that the prior 9 pages have become
null and void....

Cheers!

Asha'man · 04-02-2002, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Let's let the lurkers determine, based on the last
8 pages or so who is biased and who:
1)has LOOKED FOR evidence about the shroud and
related matters.
2)has presented it in those pages.

From my lurking, it looks like Koy is entirely correct, and your evidence isn't worth the electrons it takes to display it.

The piece of evidence you need to look for is an example of blood not draining from an arterial wound in the feet, in a body supported in the upright position. It is blindingly obvious that all the blood would be gone after a few hours, if not minutes.

Sure, in the majority of cases that are examined by forensics, there may be some blood left in the body that may emerge after death. But the majority of cases are obviously not crucifixion, which clearly is a special case. Your inability to recognize this obvious fact only damages your credibility more.

Yet another lurker's opinion....

leonarde · 04-02-2002, 05:08 AM

Posted by Asha'man:

Quote:

The piece of evidence you need to look for is an example of blood not draining from an arterial
wound in the feet, in a body supported in the upright position. It is blindingly obvious that all the blood would be gone after a few hours, if not minutes.

The problem with this is:
1)MOST crucifixion victims who have been NAILED
to the cross will have these foot wounds (ie bleeding ones).
2)we KNOW, from records outside the Gospels, that
not only did victims sometimes survive for many
hours on the cross (ie long past the time, when,
by your account, they should have bled to death)
but, occasionally, they lasted for 1 to 2 DAYS.
3)the OTHER two victims on Good Friday survived
at least 1 to 2 hours beyond the 3 pm death of Jesus, and THAT'S WHY their legs were broken.
The broken legs were to accelerate the asphyxiation process (NOT the bleeding process).
4)the broken legs and most of the research that
has gone into the mechanics of crucifixion indicate that the most USUAL cause of death is
asphyxiation.
5)as I mentioned previously, the forensics texts
which I consulted and which had any reference to
crucifixion, all did so under the "death by asphyxiation" section: specifically under the
"death by SLOW asphyxiation" rubric.

Cheers!

Principia · 04-02-2002, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
4)the broken legs and most of the research that
has gone into the mechanics of crucifixion indicate that the most USUAL cause of death is
asphyxiation.

Inconclusive. While breaking legs would probably accelerate death by asphyxiation, it begs the question what are the statistics of how other victims died if they didn't have their legs broken. Correlation is not causation. In other words, if many people had to have their legs broken, then it would simply imply that others who didn't died of other mechanisms. Anyways, did *every* crucifixion victim go through the same torture that was described in the Bible? All of these details are not irrelevant to the cause of death, and are unlikely to be reproduced in any 'research.' One can just imagine a Roman accountant keeping a library of these minute details for posterity.

Even today, unless required by authorities, most deaths are not analyzed to such detail. Corpse comes in to the morgue from a gang shootout. GSW to the neck, piercing the trachea and carotid. Did he die from excessive blood loss or choking from his own blood? Chances are, it won't matter, and nobody will bother to find out.

SC

PS: It seems like leonarde is not that different from our friend Douglas in RRP after all. Same argumentative strategy, but different idiosyncracy. Both profess to be knowledgeable, but consistently prefer repetition of irrelevant facts rather than critical analysis.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]

Oolon Colluphid · 04-02-2002, 06:11 AM

Bugger me sideways! Now I know why I don�t look in here very often! Ten pages of nonsense about a medieval relic?! Hans has made a point that should move this on, or shut it down:

Quote:

Assume the shroud is 1970 years old, conforms to biblical accounts, and all evidence attainable from the cloth concludes it was laid over a corpse consistant with Jesus' corpse as can be deduced from biblical accounts.

Assume all that and what do you have? A cloth that was laid over a dead guy nearly 2,000 years ago. And that would demonstrate the existence of a deity, because?

Even if (and it�s one hell of a big if) the shroud were really from a crucified 1st century man, what exactly would it prove? The Romans crucified people. Well duh.

Oolon

leonarde · 04-02-2002, 06:21 AM

Partial post by Scientiae:

Quote:

Inconclusive. While breaking legs would probably accelerate death by asphyxiation, it
begs the question what are the statistics of how other victims died if they didn't have their
legs broken. Correlation is not causation. In other words, if many people had to have their
legs broken, then it would simply imply that others who didn't died of other mechanisms.

Of course there ARE no statistics on how OTHER
victims of crucifixion died when their legs were
NOT broken but we DO know that sometimes they
lingered for many hours, occasionally for a day
or so. This is NOT compatible with the claim by
Asha'man that "all the blood would be gone after
a few hours, if not minutes."

Since Scientiae thinks I have been repetitive and
questions my depiction of a crucifixion death, I
post from a source I have NEVER used before. The
URL clearly DOES have a religious agenda here but
the medicine and the medical experts quoted give
a good insight into the nature of the crucifixion
process:

Quote:

DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION : SLOW SUFFOCATION

Shallowness of breathing causes small areas of lung collapse.
Decreased oxygen and increased carbon dioxide causes acidic conditions in the tissues.
Fluid builds up in the lungs. Makes situation in step 2 worse.
Heart is stressed and eventually fails.

The slow process of suffering and resulting death during a crucifixion may be summarized as follows:

"...it appears likely that the mechanism of death in crucifixion was suffocation. The chain of events which ultimately
led to suffocation are as follows: With the weight of the body being supported by the sedulum, the arms were pulled upward. This caused the intercostal and pectoral muscles to be stretched. Furthermore, movement of these muscles
was opposed by the weight of the body. With the muscles of respiration thus stretched, the respiratory bellows became relatively fixed. As dyspnea developed and pain in the wrists and arms increased, the victim was forced to raise the
body off the sedulum, thereby transferring the weight of the body to the feet. Respirations became easier, but with the weight of the body being exerted on the feet, pain in the feet and legs mounted. When the pain became unbearable, the
victim again slumped down on the sedulum with the weight of the body pulling on the wrists and again stretching the intercostal muscles. Thus, the victim alternated between lifting his body off the sedulum in order to breathe and slumping down on the sedulum to relieve pain in the feet. Eventually , he became exhausted or lapsed into
unconsciousness so that he could no longer lift his body off the sedulum. In this position, with the respiratory muscles essentially paralyzed, the victim suffocated and died. (DePasquale and Burch)

Due to the shallow breathing, the victim's lungs begin to collapse in small areas. causing hypoxia and hypercarbia. A respiratory acidosis, with lack of compensation by the kidneys due to the loss of blood from the numerous beatings, resulted in an
increased strain on the heart, which beats faster to compensate. Fluid builds up in the lungs. . Under the stress of hypoxia and acidosis the heart eventually fails. There are several different theories on the actual cause of death. One theory states that there was a filling of the pericardium with fluid, which put a fatal strain on the ability of the heart to pump blood (Lumpkin). Another theory states that Jesus died of cardiac rupture." (Bergsma) The actual cause of Jesus' death, however, "may have been multifactorial and related primarily to hypovolemic shock, exhaustion asphyxia and perhaps acute heart failure."(Edwards ) A fatal cardiac arrhythmia may have caused the final terminal event. (Johnson, Edwards)

The above medical opinions are taken from:
<a href="http://www.khouse.org/blueletter/Comm/terasaka/crucify.html" target="_blank">http://www.khouse.org/blueletter/Comm/terasaka/crucify.html</a>

At the end of the URL is a bibliography for those
who want more detail.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

leonarde · 04-02-2002, 06:34 AM

Oolon C, quoting Hans:

Quote:

Assume the shroud is 1970 years old, conforms to biblical accounts,
and all evidence attainable from the cloth concludes it was laid over a corpse consistant with Jesus' corpse as can be deduced from biblical accounts.

Assume all that and what do you have? A cloth that was laid over a dead guy nearly 2,000 years ago. And that would demonstrate the existence of a deity, because?

I'm a Shroudie, dammit, not
a theologian. Perhaps we have a theologian or two
in the house?

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

04-01-2002, 05:18 PM	#241
Datheron Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 553	Leonade, There is such a type of argument whereby one hopes to win simply by overwhelming the opposition with quantity, authority and volume that is considered fallacious - Koy and myself have already identified this as "argument from authority". Doing all sorts of research, as you have done here, and posting I would estimate up to 7 pages of links does not make for a superior argument unless you can analyze such statements as well as refute objections to those arguments that you have put forward. Most of what I see from you is the ruthless plowing through of counterarguments with more links and continued rambling; I do not believe even the lurkers will be entertained by such tactics.

04-01-2002, 06:41 PM	#242
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Datherton, I am NOT trying to "entertain" ANYONE here: this is a thread about the Shroud of Turin. The 64,000 dollar question about it is: authenticity. That has at least 3 elements: 1)does it have a image of a true victim of crucifixion on it? 2)does the Shroud (and PERHAPS the image)go back to ancient or merely medieval times? 3)is the Man of the Shroud Jesus? All of my posts here have had SOMETHING to do with one or all of these questions: directly or indirectly. On pages 3 and 4 I stated that the image had 3D elements. That simple statement by me drew a bunch of sneering laughs. So I provided a URL to substantiate it. One early participant stated that the "obvious forgery" was proved by debunking the direct contact/vaporography methods of possible image- formation. So I pointed out that no authenticity advocate of any knowledge of the last 20 years has supported those theories: I cited and quoted from Nickell's book (Nickell being an authenticity OPPONENT). Spin raised the linguistic question: the koine Greek word(s) not being consistent with a single one-piece burial cloth. I responded based on what I remembered about the language question, mentioning among other things that the Sudarium and the Shroud together made at least 2 burial cloths. Time after time, when someone raised an objection, I tried to respond in a courteous manner. I did supply a LOT of URLs but that was NOT to "defeat" any opponent, it was to have a ready reference for those who were not satisfied with the admittedly cursory examination that such threads generally produce. The truth or falsity about the Shroud of Turin, like so many other things, can only be determined by looking at the evidence in DETAIL. Some of the URLs (and I think 6 to 8 WERE supplied by the other side) can lead the curious to a deeper appreciation of the true nature of the controversies. (There are a few TRUE controversies about it but for the most part we have barely grazed them). Personally, I am quite satisfied with my exchanges with Jack the Bodiless, wherein I gave the reasons why authenticity is MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely than a forgery. Whether Jack or anyone else is satisfied with my responses I cannot say; I can only answer as best I can. Lastly, my esteemed opponent Koy: I'm sure if I were talking to him about the Yankees or some neutral subject we could have a decent conversation but his tone in the first 4 or 5 pages was SO shrill, his condemnation of things he clearly didn't understand so vehement, his posts so long and unsubstantiated, that I finally gave up on him more or less entirely. I HAD hoped that the exchanges here would have been more courteous but I think I came in a distant second in the snide remarks race. Cheers!

04-02-2002, 04:04 AM	#243
hyzer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: philadelphia Posts: 1,844	It looks like a rubbing. The image on the shroud looks like it was draped very carefully across a low relief sculpture. I see no evidence that this supposed burial cloth “wrapped” anything. Your 3 elements: 1. the shroud has an image, one can “see” anything in the image that one wants to (like those who see Elvis’ image in marmalade on the breakfast toast – hey! It happed to me). 2. the shroud has be dated to the 1300’s. 3. I am sure that the artist is trying to depict Jesus. A lurker.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.