[Otanku]

Thought I would post this to see what everyone thinks about this:

http://news.yahoo.co...shroud_of_turin


Short gist is that one camp will believe this new information is additional evidence, and the other camp believes that the shroud was already carbondated much later than 100ad and therefore additional information is n/a.

What say you?

[Undome Telcontar]

seems to me that if the carbon dating is accurate, anything else is N/A. if they used the wrong piece of fabric from a later repair, then they need to go back and test from several spots.

either way, this seems like a combination of over-analysis and over-enhancement.

[Brando]

No amount of testing is going to convince anyone of anything.

Those who believe the Shroud of Turin to be authentic will continue to believe so, those who do not will continue to disbelieve. It's an area in which science really has no standing.

[Undome Telcontar]

well yeah. but religion in and of itself is designed to prey on people's irrationality. logical arguments are never going to make any difference.

[ming]

Brando, on 21 Nov 2009, 08:49 PM, said:

No amount of testing is going to convince anyone of anything.

Those who believe the Shroud of Turin to be authentic will continue to believe so, those who do not will continue to disbelieve. It's an area in which science really has no standing.

lol

i love the wash here

no brother, science has the highest standing in dating an object. science has no standing in the minds of those who reject empirical evidence. if we were to say that science had no standing when someone wants to put on blinders, then it would never have any standing. the shroud of turin is a clear fake, and it's honestly embarrassing for portions of christianity to be hung up on things like this or the testimonium flavianum. the effort and/or sanctioning from the church for more than a century to create forgeries which confirm pauline tradition is well documented. christianity has come so far and evolved so much since the dark ages, but it clearly has a long way to go if they're still rejecting elementary science and logic in such large numbers.

[Jason Solo]

I'm thinking along the same lines as Undome. If one argument against the carbon dating is that the piece of fabric they used to date was from a repaired piece of the shroud, why not do the testing again, this time just in multiple locations of the cloth. If they all turn out the same, you eliminate that argument. Or confirm the argument as valid if different results turn up.

Though on the other hand, it's probably not a big deal to the science community anymore.

[Brando]

ming, on 21 Nov 2009, 09:31 PM, said:

no brother, science has the highest standing in dating an object. science has no standing in the minds of those who reject empirical evidence. if we were to say that science had no standing when someone wants to put on blinders, then it would never have any standing.

I don't disagree, but in this situation there's not going to be an adequate answer. If new testing were done that proves that the Shroud is actually from the correct time, would that change anyone's mind? In this case, there are three camps: those who believe (who won't be swayed), those who don't believe (who won't be swayed) and those who really don't care (the vast majority of people).

Jason Solo, on 21 Nov 2009, 09:55 PM, said:

I'm thinking along the same lines as Undome. If one argument against the carbon dating is that the piece of fabric they used to date was from a repaired piece of the shroud, why not do the testing again, this time just in multiple locations of the cloth. If they all turn out the same, you eliminate that argument. Or confirm the argument as valid if different results turn up.

Though on the other hand, it's probably not a big deal to the science community anymore.

This makes sense, especially the last line.

Is anyone going to change their mind because of what carbon dating reveals? Really, the fact that the original testing was done poorly (selecting only a small sample instead of different areas) certainly puts the results in question, but I seriously doubt that new testing would convince anyone who cares, because most have already made up their minds or don't care. It's like trying to prove which side is correct in a political debate.

[ShadowDog]

The testing worked for me because I believed the Shroud was real until the testing proved it wasn't. But then I'm not a slobbering brainless religious fanatic so maybe that's it.

I've mentioned this before but there's an excellent book out there detailing how someone created the Shroud. Once the carbon dating test proved it was fake, the biggest mystery was HOW it was faked to look so cool. This book answers it by duplicating the process using various objects to create images on Shroudlike material that look just like the Christ image. I can dig the name and author for you guys if anyone's curious.

[Svenn]

I was going to say that the Vatican should probably be very careful about claiming the authenticity of alleged relics, but according to the article, "the Catholic Church makes no claims about the cloth's authenticity."

[Sonny]

No but they will sit by smiling quietly and let other people make such claims.

[Svenn]

Sonny, on 24 Nov 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

No but they will sit by smiling quietly and let other people make such claims.

I think that's understandable. By staying quiet on the issue, they avoid the risks associated with taking either position.

[Sonny]

Exactly. And I can't say I blame them. They didn't get to where they are by being foolish.

[Brando]

But the fact is that it really hasn't been proven, either way, due to incredibly poor testing.

Really, I think if there's going to be so much debate, they should re-test in a scientific manner, but even if it is proven to be "fake," I see the debate just switching to whether or not it's still miraculous and just different.

That era is responsible for countless fake relics, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Shroud was fake. I think that it probably isn't real, but I don't think that it's been proven yet.

[REVROSWELL]

Undome Telcontar, on 21 Nov 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

well yeah. but religion in and of itself is designed to prey on people's irrationality. logical arguments are never going to make any difference.

You should read the book* ud. Logic is the domain of religion. Atheist do not defend their own paradigm they are the people that have something to hide. Have you forgotten the definition of a cosmological argument for the existence of God? They use logic and reason, something that atheism would find foreign.

RR



Oh the book ;

[EwoksSuck]

I think Brando is right in that people are going to see what they want to see. Personally I think the Shroud is a fake because the image looks like the westernized version of Christ. Jesus, if a real living human being, as a Jew in Palestine was not a long haired white guy. Studies of the Jewish people from that region at that time period suggest he would most likely have had dark olive skin, short curly hair and a prominent nose. In other words he More likely would look like this 3D model:




Than this painting based on the shroud image:

This post has been edited by EwoksSuck: 21 December 2009 - 05:03 PM

[Brando]

The Shroud does look more like King Arthur than anything else.

[REVROSWELL]

It doesn't matter if the shroud is authentic or not. Believing its real may help ritualistic concerns for example items such as the shroud or a piece of toast (an attempt at humor) etc may enhance the ability to believe.

Personally, I doubt that its the shroud of Turin was the cloth that covered Jesus, because I feel his resurrection was spiritual and most likely did not involve natural events. Its fun to speculate that the transfiguration (from death of the flesh to a spirit) would of begin with natural processes turning flesh into energy as in E=MC2 or similar fashion, but I don't think its a good idea to stake ones reputation on. What irks me to no end are the PEA's (see my thread on Predatory atheism) that attempt to dash the hopes of the faithful. I see those people as satanically influenced losers dedicated to harm believers. They should get a life and learn something of morals and ethics, if not ethics or morals maybe they could use a roll of duct tape to control inexpert verbal emissions.


RR

This post has been edited by REVROSWELL: 22 December 2009 - 08:19 AM