If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Shroud of Turin may not be a hoax after all. I'm not saying it's Jesus, but it's Jesus   (foxnews.com) divider line 433
    More: Interesting, Shroud of Turin, carbon datings  
•       •       •

14918 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-29 07:15:36 PM

Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.


Yup. Not to mention, a piece of linen supposedly that old would've disintegrated to dust long ago. There's already been a number of radiocarbon dating tests done on the shroud, the age of it isn't going to suddenly change.
 
2013-03-29 07:23:24 PM

WhyteRaven74:

Nothing but a camera obscura, a piece of cloth and some photosensitive chemicals
Oh, right.  Medieval forgers make a fake Shroud by developing photography.  Very clever.  WTF would they bother?  Get a cloth, rough it up and paint on it -- that always worked in the medieval relic scams.  That's ALMOST as dumb as suggesting that they had computers and UV lasers -- but at least the computer and lasers COULD produce the type of image on the shroud; your idea could not.
 
2013-03-29 07:23:45 PM

colon_pow: Z1P2: If the shroud of turin was used on Jesus, then it proves He didn't resurrect since the image left on it is from decomposition.

nope.  he passed through it.  it was left behind in the tomb.


Then why is it only the surface of his body? Shouldn't his bones and organs have left an impression?
 
2013-03-29 07:25:34 PM

colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.


I've served on several juries. Eye-witness testimony is not held in high esteem without backing evidence.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 07:29:18 PM

GeneralJim: Just ask LazarusOsiris...  he was not only dead, he was starting to smell bad, and he got up and walked away.  Personally, I would count resurrection as miraculous.  YMMV.


What is the difference in content between your version and mine? Why is mine wrong and yours right? Or, as is more likely, both wrong?
 
2013-03-29 07:33:07 PM

s2s2s2: No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.


Not sure if serious, or just very poorly worded.

Any contrasting image an be extracted into a 3d shape.  Hand drawn, photographic, photoshop, whatever.

All depends on how the software engineers want to read the information.  Typically called displacement maps, or bump maps.

www.moridin.com   This turns into:

www.moridin.com

www.moridin.com

Commonly used in video games to simulate active lighting(shininess or wetness) or depth in texture because it appears to change when your perspetctive moves.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-29 07:37:02 PM

GeneralJim: rpm: You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Just ask Lazarus...  he was not only dead, he was starting to smell bad, and he got up and walked away.  Personally, I would count resurrection as miraculous.  YMMV.


Okay. Let's ask him. Where is he? Prove that he actually existed. Then we'll talk about his supposed resurrection.
 
2013-03-29 07:37:46 PM
I love this thread.

/not being sarcastic.
 
2013-03-29 07:38:52 PM

rpm:

So things 2000 years apart would show as AT WORST 2015 years apart. Not the same, 2015 years apart. That's over 3 orders of magnitude wrong.

fc05.deviantart.net
 
2013-03-29 07:42:55 PM

omeganuepsilon: wiredroach: the forger could have used a flat bas relief model for the face with pigment applied. this would transfer pigment at different levels based on the elevation of the facial features,

Ah, I believe I see what you're saying now.  What you're talking about would be more simply described as a stamp. IE:

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Not elevation of the facial features, but in the depiction, the elevation in the bas relief.

That's what was throwing me off.(in combination with "draping" of course.)

You're more about describing how it was done.

I was more simply describing how it couldn't be a shroud.
If you take the following cloth and lie it on a flat surface it will not look like a photograph, whatever image is there would be distorted:
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 299x168]
Ergo, any image transferral would be more relative to something 2d in nature like a photograph(or as you suggest, an imprint from a flatter object than a human body)

/i do believe the bottom pic is cloth dynamics in Poser, but was one of the better results for "shroud draping" that conveyed the right picture, the coinsidense of 3d software is a fluke


More or less, yeah.
 
2013-03-29 07:43:02 PM

wiredroach:

Doesn't require magical resurrection Jesus beams at all. Just means that the pigment on the shroud is proportional to depth, rather than a static depiction of a fixed light source falling on a 3-dimensional face as in most paintings or drawings.
A nice hypothesis -- but there's no pigment on the Shroud.
 
2013-03-29 07:43:28 PM

Surool: ReverendJynxed: Surool: colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

So we haven't gone to mars with probes and rovers. After all we cannot take the word of NASA and the video THEY produce cannot be used as proof itself.

You are more than welcome to takes mythical bronze-age writing complete with multiple versions, deleted and contradictory accounts as a complete and true if you want. You are also welcome to deny that there is noting that exists but the Earth, and the stars but pinholes in the curtain of night. Go all in, it's a free country.


It's your logic.
 
2013-03-29 07:45:33 PM

GeneralJim: WhyteRaven74: Nothing but a camera obscura, a piece of cloth and some photosensitive chemicalsOh, right.  Medieval forgers make a fake Shroud by developing photography.  Very clever.  WTF would they bother?  Get a cloth, rough it up and paint on it -- that always worked in the medieval relic scams.  That's ALMOST as dumb as suggesting that they had computers and UV lasers -- but at least the computer and lasers COULD produce the type of image on the shroud; your idea could not.



WIKI:
The camera obscura has been known to scholars since the time of Mozi and Aristotle.[2] The first surviving mention of the principles behind the pinhole camera or camera obscura belongs to Mozi (Mo-Ti) (470 to 390 BCE), a Chinese philosopher and the founder of Mohism.[3] Mozi referred to this device as a "collecting plate" or "locked treasure room."[4]
The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 to 322 BCE) understood the optical principle of the pinhole camera.[5] He viewed the crescent shape of a partially eclipsed sun projected on the ground through the holes in a sieve and through the gaps between the leaves of a plane tree. In the 4th century BCE, Aristotle noted that "sunlight travelling through small openings between the leaves of a tree, the holes of a sieve, the openings wickerwork, and even interlaced fingers will create circular patches of light on the ground." Euclid's Optics (ca 300 BCE) presupposed the camera obscura as a demonstration that light travels in straight lines.[6] In the 4th century, Greek scholar Theon of Alexandria observed that "candlelight passing through a pinhole will create an illuminated spot on a screen that is directly in line with the aperture and the center of the candle."


Wasn't a new idea, and Da Vinci loved such gizmo's, even wrote about(or drew) this one in his own works.   It's not an impossible thing as you suggest.
 
2013-03-29 07:49:29 PM

frepnog:

That is the only reason the "controversy" continues. It is a medieval fake. Once again, anyone that says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.
Really?  So, you have faith that medieval forgers had computers and UV lasers to manufacture relics.  I'd say that makes YOU a liar or a fool.
 
2013-03-29 07:50:18 PM

GeneralJim: wiredroach: Doesn't require magical resurrection Jesus beams at all. Just means that the pigment on the shroud is proportional to depth, rather than a static depiction of a fixed light source falling on a 3-dimensional face as in most paintings or drawings.A nice hypothesis -- but there's no pigment on the Shroud.


Coloration then?  There is a visible image correct?

Getting pedantic now...
 
rpm
2013-03-29 07:53:23 PM

GeneralJim: Really?  So, you have faith that medieval forgers had computers and UV lasers to manufacture relics.  I'd say that makes YOU a liar or a fool.


No, but they did have the silver nitrate that's been found on the shroud. And hmmm, what is silver nitrate used for?
 
2013-03-29 07:55:05 PM

GeneralJim: frepnog: That is the only reason the "controversy" continues. It is a medieval fake. Once again, anyone that says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.Really?  So, you have faith that medieval forgers had computers and UV lasers to manufacture relics.  I'd say that makes YOU a liar or a fool.


Do you always misrepresent what other people are saying? Computers and lasers are not needed to create the shroud.
 
2013-03-29 07:56:15 PM
GeneralJim, shroud of Turin believer and global warming denier.

I think that says it all really.
 
2013-03-29 08:02:25 PM

GeneralJim: A nice hypothesis -- but there's no pigment on the Shroud.


Ok, then you've proven your case. Clearly it was caused by Jesus.
 
2013-03-29 08:08:19 PM

ReverendJynxed: Surool: ReverendJynxed: Surool: colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

So we haven't gone to mars with probes and rovers. After all we cannot take the word of NASA and the video THEY produce cannot be used as proof itself.

You are more than welcome to takes mythical bronze-age writing complete with multiple versions, deleted and contradictory accounts as a complete and true if you want. You are also welcome to deny that there is noting that exists but the Earth, and the stars but pinholes in the curtain of night. Go all in, it's a free country.

It's your logic.


No, in my logic, the claim is that we went to Mars, and the photos and the data are the proof. It's a pretty big difference in both the example provided and the quality of evidence. Then again, false equivalency is the only way people like you can avoid looking like complete tools... to yourselves anyway.
 
2013-03-29 08:18:36 PM
Jesus or not, it doesn't prove he was the son of god.
 
2013-03-29 08:30:12 PM

GeneralJim: Just ask Lazarus...  he was not only dead, he was starting to smell bad, and he got up and walked away.

<Not going to quote all of the other stuff...>


And you actually think that happened because a book written by sheep herders that lived in mud huts and believed epileptic seizures were caused by demonic possession says so? Not to mention the fact that the accounts of all of these things were written by people that weren't even there. Also, a large portion of the Christian dogma was decided upon a group of people convened by Constantine I in 325 AD known as the First Council of Nicaea which greatly influenced which accounts were eventually canonized and included in the book you know today.  If I were to throw skepticism out the window like the "true believer" does when claiming their holy book to be the true authority on historical matters, I could use the same logic to state Spiderman is real - there are several illustrated books detailing his actions that could not have been made unless they were there to witness his deeds!

Look, I understand you are afraid of death and want life to go on forever. And, due to this fear you will hold on to whatever "evidence", real or imaginary, you can find to support your belief in a Santa Claus like figure that will grant you the Grand Prize of life after death for behaving in a way consistent with your interpretation of what it means to follow his rules and not get on to the naughty list. But, when you start saying things like "OMG RESURRECTIONZ IS REEL 'CAUSE BIBLE SAYZ PEEPLES SAW IT", you do nothing but open yourself up to ridicule. Science works by changing theories to fit observable or experimental data that can be measured, reproduced, and verified by others. Religion clings to a dogma no matter how retarded it is - i.e. transubstantiation, resurrection, miracles, etc. - and will only count evidence as true if it supports the dogma. Any evidence to the contrary is "blasphemous", "evil", or created by some type of entity to distract us from the "Truth" of the dogma. This is why anyone with any critical thinking skills or understanding of empirical evidence will at best be skeptical of your claims, and at worst laugh in your face.

Greeks and Romans believed in their gods existence as well, but no one today would ever consider those beliefs to be more than mythology. The same is true for the bible. Religion is created when unexplainable phenomenon are frightening. During biblical times, this included sickness, death, natural disasters, etc. Stories circulate to explain things in a way people with limited scientific knowledge will understand (that earthquake means our god/gods are pissed!), then become embellished and passed down orally. They end up being complete fabrications infused with each teller's prejudices and interpretations, not unlike the game of "telephone" you may have played in school. Then a literate person writes it down. Other people follow suit and suddenly - Voila! - someone sticks them all together, edits them so they match up (more or less) and holds up the new book written by God himself! It still happens today - homeopathy, psychics, penis enlargement techniques that don't involve surgery, etc., are all dubious claims that the scientifically illiterate will believe in. Religions still crop up, too - How about a nice dose of Mormonism or Scientology? The Raelian Movement seems like fun. Why do these things persist? The same reason religion does - in order for the purveyors to obtain wealth and/or power.

Do yourself a favor - learn to be skeptical.
 
2013-03-29 08:34:40 PM

kobrakai: jjwars1: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

I guess I should have been more specific. Prove he walked on water or turned water into wine and I might pay attention.


That water to wine thing was Everclear and concentrated grape juice.
 
2013-03-29 08:36:39 PM

fetushead: And you actually think that happened because a book


Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.
 
2013-03-29 08:54:20 PM

fetushead: Do yourself a favor - learn to be skeptical.


Why would he be doing himself a favor? He might be happier the way he is.
I would love to be able to share the Christian's belief that the universe I live in is the rational product of the mind of a just and loving god.
I would love to share the Muslim's belief that the universe is a fair place, where the just and kind are rewarded, and the wicked punished.
I would love to share the Hindu's belief that I can come back and live again and again, until I get it right.
Unfortunately, I do not possess the capacity to believe any of those things - but I happily would, if I could.
 
2013-03-29 08:56:33 PM

omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.


What science?
 
2013-03-29 09:08:14 PM

Surool: omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.

What science?


I found foetushead's essay quite an enjoyable read and look forward to more.  The science revolved around the hows and whys of carbon dating.  It too was a nice read. We were also treated to a fallacy of the excluded middle where the statement that either Iesus magically rose through the fabric of the shroud, scorching it on the way ( ana/kata in all directions, by the way), or that the 11th century forger had access to computers and ultraviolet lasers was offered as proof that it had to be Iesus.
 
2013-03-29 09:10:20 PM

Surool: omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.

What science?


Carbon dating.  Image transference techniques.  Spacial Relations and the nature of light, perspective, etc...culminating in  Camera Obsura/bas relief possibilities.

For a religion based thread, it had a LOT of science.

t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-29 09:10:43 PM

phalamir: That makes no sense. If he was so glaringly different, and the reason was so glaringly obvious that you didn't even have to point it out, then why didn't everyone just bow and worship him on sight? Since everyone evidently was 100% sure about what the Son of God looked like*, and were 100% sure Jesus fit the description (so sure in fact that even mentioning he fit the description was considered too blase to ever be written down), there would be no reason to do otherwise. "We hates him, yes we does, precious" doesn't even fly. The priests have abundant records of what happens when you accidentally make God slightly non-orgasmic, i.e. complete genocide; you cannot realistically say the entire upper class of Israel were raging megalomaniacal race-suicides - at least a few would have to have a small sense of self-preservation.

It also doesn't get around the whole Judas pointing him out problem: Even if the Romans didn't know the universal description of Son of God, there was no reason to go through the whole deal of dragging Judas along. Just grab any Jew and pay them a few coins to explain what the Son of God looks like. Or turn to the approximately 2,854,781,739,21,729,217,819 Roman centurions who used Jesus as an HMO and then started a fan club francise

*BTW, if it was so glaringly obvious that no one could doubt it, yet not need to describe it, I have to assume the Son of God description was thus: He is 13 feet tall; has bright orange skin, covered is chartreuse tattoos spelling out the phrase "My shiat Smells Like Roses" in every possible language; a blue mohawk half a mile is radius, with each individual hair ending in a foot-wide disco ball; his 9 cocks all drag along the ground behind him for 20 feet, each one whistling the tune for Hava Nagila in 4 part harmony; he has 20 eyes, each neon purple; his teeth are numbered in the hundreds, are each made of steel, and each constantly crawls out of his mouth and ambles along his hundreds of red facial tentacle ...


Haha, you made me lol. Good job. Not at you but with you sort of thing. That and your description was pretty good. All I'm saying is I don't really recall any physical descriptions of anyone in the Bible sans The Jesus' hole-y hands. They may not have been bigotted assholes who thought "One of these is not like the other; which one of these things isn't the same! Let's kill it!". The Shroud could be nonsense, but it isn't nonsense because the person looks differently than what you say people looked like back then. It'd be nonsense, because it could have been anyone.
 
2013-03-29 09:12:02 PM

dopirt: Surool: omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.

What science?

I found foetushead's essay quite an enjoyable read and look forward to more.  The science revolved around the hows and whys of carbon dating.  It too was a nice read. We were also treated to a fallacy of the excluded middle where the statement that either Iesus magically rose through the fabric of the shroud, scorching it on the way ( ana/kata in all directions, by the way), or that the 11th century forger had access to computers and ultraviolet lasers was offered as proof that it had to be Iesus.


Call me back when somebody performs an experiment using more conventional methods of creating the image and leaves it alone for 700-800 years.
 
2013-03-29 09:16:25 PM

Surool: dopirt: Surool: omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.

What science?

I found foetushead's essay quite an enjoyable read and look forward to more.  The science revolved around the hows and whys of carbon dating.  It too was a nice read. We were also treated to a fallacy of the excluded middle where the statement that either Iesus magically rose through the fabric of the shroud, scorching it on the way ( ana/kata in all directions, by the way), or that the 11th century forger had access to computers and ultraviolet lasers was offered as proof that it had to be Iesus.

Call me back when somebody performs an experiment using more conventional methods of creating the image and leaves it alone for 700-800 years.


May I also suggest holding your breath that long?
 
2013-03-29 09:18:14 PM

omeganuepsilon: Surool: dopirt: Surool: omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.

What science?

I found foetushead's essay quite an enjoyable read and look forward to more.  The science revolved around the hows and whys of carbon dating.  It too was a nice read. We were also treated to a fallacy of the excluded middle where the statement that either Iesus magically rose through the fabric of the shroud, scorching it on the way ( ana/kata in all directions, by the way), or that the 11th century forger had access to computers and ultraviolet lasers was offered as proof that it had to be Iesus.

Call me back when somebody performs an experiment using more conventional methods of creating the image and leaves it alone for 700-800 years.

May I also suggest holding your breath that long?


Suggest away.
 
2013-03-29 09:24:45 PM

Surool: dopirt: Surool: omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.

What science?

I found foetushead's essay quite an enjoyable read and look forward to more.  The science revolved around the hows and whys of carbon dating.  It too was a nice read. We were also treated to a fallacy of the excluded middle where the statement that either Iesus magically rose through the fabric of the shroud, scorching it on the way ( ana/kata in all directions, by the way), or that the 11th century forger had access to computers and ultraviolet lasers was offered as proof that it had to be Iesus.

Call me back when somebody performs an experiment using more conventional methods of creating the image and leaves it alone for 700-800 years.


Scorched natural fibre certainly can last many millennia.  I doubt it was a novel technique. In 700-800 years someone will be arguing that the only way this shroud could have been created was through the molecular printing technology of that future day.
 
2013-03-29 09:26:28 PM

dopirt: molecular printing technology of that future day.


Heh, i'm just wrapping up Diamond Age
/getting a kick
 
2013-03-29 09:38:12 PM

omeganuepsilon: fetushead: And you actually think that happened because a book

Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.


I addressed the issue in a way I thought fitting -  by showing why the argument for the shroud to be real starts off as fallacious because one first has to believe Jesus was truly a demigod or "son" of god because a book says so. Then, I explained how science works as compared to religion and gave examples of why people hold on to such beliefs even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I provided other examples of similar belief systems.

I suppose I should have explained that there are a myriad of suppositions that need to be taken as fact before you can even begin to discuss the shroud's authenticity - that god exists, that the bible is true and is not suspect, that Jesus was god's son and had divine powers that manifested in miracles he performed, that he was crucified and buried and covered with a shroud, that he respawned, that this event left an impression on the shroud through some magical or miraculous means, that the shroud was kept safe for two thousand years, and that the shroud held up as being the one Jesus was buried isn't a fake. These suppositions need to be dealt with first...
 
2013-03-29 10:14:32 PM

T.rex:  most altheist (sic) historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.


Name three.
 
2013-03-29 10:23:41 PM

fetushead: Also, a large portion of the Christian dogma was decided upon a group of people convened by Constantine I in 325 AD known as the First Council of Nicaea which greatly influenced which accounts were eventually canonized and included in the book you know today


Actually, I read on the wikipedia page that they didn't really choose the gospels. I always thought they did, and perhaps they really did, but the wiki page says otherwise. At least it did about a week ago when I read it.
 
2013-03-29 10:30:03 PM

fetushead: These suppositions need to be dealt with first...


Whatever floats your boat I guess.   I don't see it that way.

Won't work with a true believer any more than you can just walk up to them and say "God doesn't exist" and have them believe that out of hand.

As with any great construct, it's most efficient to do a little work on the support structure and let it collapse.  When you just try to bulldoze the whole thing it doesn't work so well and you end up with a broken bulldozer.

With our approach, you don't have to get them to stop believing in magic.  If you can convince them that the particulars all around are wrong, then they find themselves with no need to Believe here.  You're training them to let go AND to think rationally, in the end, everyone wins.
 
2013-03-29 11:55:25 PM

GeneralJim: frepnog: That is the only reason the "controversy" continues. It is a medieval fake. Once again, anyone that says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.Really?  So, you have faith that medieval forgers had computers and UV lasers to manufacture relics.  I'd say that makes YOU a liar or a fool.


people.virginia.edu

Interesting article (and thread) but you're falling into this fallacy. Because something similar to the shroud  can be created with a UV laser and computers, does not mean that the shroud was created by a similar mechanism.
 
2013-03-29 11:57:11 PM

sxacho: fetushead: Also, a large portion of the Christian dogma was decided upon a group of people convened by Constantine I in 325 AD known as the First Council of Nicaea which greatly influenced which accounts were eventually canonized and included in the book you know today

Actually, I read on the wikipedia page that they didn't really choose the gospels. I always thought they did, and perhaps they really did, but the wiki page says otherwise. At least it did about a week ago when I read it.


Correct. What I said was that the dogmas that they decided on (Christ's divinity, etc) greatly influenced which accounts were eventually included in the bible. They established the framework that the religion was eventually constructed on.

omeganuepsilon:

Won't work with a true believer any more than you can just walk up to them and say "God doesn't exist" and have them believe that out of hand.

As with any great construct, it's most efficient to do a little work on the support structure and let it collapse.  When you just try to bulldoze the whole thing it doesn't work so well and you end up with a broken bulldozer.

With our approach, you don't have to get them to stop believing in magic.  If you can convince them that the particulars all around are wrong, then they find themselves with no need to Believe here.  You're training them to let go AND to think rationally, in the end, everyone wins.


I definitely see the logic in your approach and agree with it on a fundamental level. However, convincing a True Believer of anything antithetical to their established (and perhaps psychologically necessary) belief system is an uphill battle any way you slice it. Introduction of rational thought can be tricky, especially when dealing with years of indoctrination by a particular ideology. I suppose my thinking is that if you start with the basics you can trump any future circular arguments. Nothing is more annoying than the following type of exchange:

Person 1: How do you know your god is real?
Person 2: My holy book says so.
Person 1: How do you know your holy book is correct?
Person 2: It was written by god.
Person 1: How do you know your holy book was written by god?
Person 2: My holy book says so.

No one argument can stand on its own without invoking the others, which in turn cannot stand on their own, etc.
 
2013-03-30 12:16:36 AM

fetushead: However, convincing a True Believer of anything antithetical to their established (and perhaps psychologically necessary) belief system is an uphill battle any way you slice it.


Well, I do profess that I don't try to sway the True Believer, by definition that's impossible.

It's the audience at large, the undecided, that we really have the opportunity to catch.

If we debunk each and every topic quickly and thoroughly, do so cleanly and efficiently without getting too deep into it.  Even if we win over people who aren't great on thinking but think," Damn, I'm getting on the smart bus!" I'll call it a win.  It also serves for a better PR route as it's somewhat less aggressive and offensive as a whole.

Plus, educating the audience at large, and a little self enrichment along the way, that's my main function(aside from the obvious, which is entertaining myself).  I'll share what I know, and further read others and research if needed.

I'm all for diggin' deep in a religious thread, as it were, just don't see it as such here.  We've got tangible evidence that is by all accounts, irrelevant to the book.  Something physical to discuss, that's farking rare!

That's an assumption though I suppose.  The shroud of turin as is, is not in the book, correct?(aside from saying "and the body was lain in a shroud" or something)  You'd think something like that would be detailed....IF it were around at the time, an image like that would be a pretty big deal.

/of course that doesn't disqualify someone making one according to spec afterwards if it were in the book
 
2013-03-30 12:41:37 AM

weirdneighbour: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x400]
Not sure about that, this guy might be a fit.


Of all the Jesus'; Buddy Jesus is my favorite.
 
2013-03-30 02:01:14 AM

s2s2s2: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x330]

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.


OK, let us assume that the image is real, where is the proof that the person depicted is in fact jesus?  Hmm?
 
2013-03-30 02:01:35 AM

colon_pow:

if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.
Additionally, I would say Jesus was the most influential person in history.
 
2013-03-30 02:05:00 AM

s2s2s2: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x330]

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.


By the way, there available software that lets any turn a 2D image into a 3D one.  And, by 2D I mean images that are not encoded with 3D elevation data.  So, that lovely green image you posted, it could have been made from any 2D image.
 
2013-03-30 02:09:41 AM

rpm:

colon_pow: In fact, it is often said there is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for the existence of a great many other historical figures

Yes, yes it is.

And it is wrong

As may be -- but the author of that piece believes that there was a historical Jesus, and that there is enough evidence to prove it.
 
2013-03-30 02:11:38 AM

ReverendJynxed: Surool: colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

So we haven't gone to mars with probes and rovers. After all we cannot take the word of NASA and the video THEY produce cannot be used as proof itself.


Not too bright, eh Rev?
 
2013-03-30 02:15:17 AM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet:

Setting aside the dubious historicity of their writings, that's four out of how many hundreds or thousands of supposed witnesses? And those four would be rather biased, too. That'd be like 9/11 only being witnessed by a dozen neo-cons.

Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.  That should count for something. "Totally bollocks, but let's get together next Sunday for a service. I've never seen a lion close up." Not likely.
 
2013-03-30 02:15:33 AM

colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.


Name these witnesses.  Now, prove that they not only actually lived but did in fact see jesus.  Now, prove that jesus live.  Prove that he was killed.  Prove that he was put in a tomb.  Prove that the person killed was in fact the same person who was supposed seen by these witnesses.

Also, you must believe in UFOs, right?  After all, there have been thousands of eye-witnesses that have seen them.
 
2013-03-30 02:16:21 AM

Mock26: s2s2s2: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x330]

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.

By the way, there available software that lets any turn a 2D image into a 3D one.  And, by 2D I mean images that are not encoded with 3D elevation data.  So, that lovely green image you posted, it could have been made from any 2D image.




It was made prior to the existence of such capabilities, and it is a scan that rendered a 3D image without trying to.

I'm still not assuming anything about whose image, or validity.
 
Displayed 50 of 433 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report