A good place to see the package deal mentality in action is the Shroud of Turin, a linen strip with the imprint of a person that was widely believed to be the burial shroud of Christ. Radiocarbon dating has revealed it to be medieval in age. Before the dating, some religious believers considered the shroud irrefutable proof of the Gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection. The interesting thing is that anti-religious skeptics, instead of doing what skeptics ought to do, which is analyze the logical chain piece by piece, reacted with something very much like panic, wholly out of proportion to the evidence.
In order to prove the Gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection, the Shroud would have to:
- Date authentically from about 30 A.D.
- Have been in Palestine in 30 A. D.
- Bear an image that authentically dates from 30 A. D. (it could have been created later)
- Bear the imprint of a real person (as opposed to an artificial image)
- Bear the imprint of a person who was actually crucified (as opposed to simulating the effects or having marks from some other cause)
- Bear the imprint of Christ as opposed to anyone else
- No longer contain a body because of a supernatural resurrection, as opposed to the body being removed
Break any link, and the Shroud no longer makes its case. So, even if the shroud is the actual burial shroud of Christ, all we have is a historical relic connected to a famous person. The most critical link, the final one, is not proven. The physical evidence is equally consistent with resurrection or with the body being removed. I've seen a hair claimed to be from the beard of Mohammed, but that doesn't prove he received messages from Gabriel. However, note that discrediting the relics doesn't disprove the supernatural claims, merely one line of evidence. If the hair is actually someone else's, it doesn't disprove Mohammed's claims, merely that someone misrepresented a hair. If the shroud is a fake, it proves only that some devout believer created a forgery. Proving that one bridge is out doesn't prove that all routes are impassible.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Abelard for Today.HTM
These persistent attacks against people you label 'atheists' don't help your argument. Most atheists I know would be very excited to see demonstrable evidence of a deity. Atheists are only disbelievers, they are not calling for a doctrine of non-belief or search for evidence against a god or gods. They merely don't buy what the theist is selling. Attacking people that accept the general consensus that the shroud is a medieval piece of art (even claiming forgery requires some evidence) because you think they are atheists with some despicable world-view, is not going to persuade anyone to see your evidence any differently but may in fact turn a neutral party against you due to your arrogant and hostile attitude. A good scientists doesn't need to throw ads hominem toward the skeptics. the pseudoscientist looks only for evidence that supports his theory. Real scientists look for evidence against their theories as well. Even if they want desperately to see their theories accepted, they know full well that their opponents will be looking for weak spots; better to anticipate criticism or even junk a cherished belief rather than be blownrc out aof the water by somebody else. The pseudoscientist not only looks only for confirmation, but he often takes a very broad view of confirmation. You actions and responses are that of a pseudoscientist. You claim to have no real reason to be on this site as you originally made some negative comment about cannabis. I can only conclude that you are an anti-intellectual religionist with an agenda to attempt to dismiss criticisms of shroud authenticity, and not interested in being reasonable or rational about the subject. This is nothing more than proselytizing, something that is not welcome.
"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." ~ Carl Sagan
So far mind I have proven just the opposite, that the majority of evidence points to this being the burial cloth of Christ and your wrong about most atheists being thrilled to find evidence as I have shown here. None of my evidence has been dealt with in a reasonable or open minded fashion. Just the opposite, they have been dealt with from a very unscientific and illogical fashion .
does a reasonable person use a non expert in any scientific field against an expert well known chemist from Los alamos labs who did have his work pass peer review. Does an open minded person use info from someone that can't get one peer reviewed paper passed then from the scientists that have peer reviewed papers that could have given him the true evidence on the shroud. Does an open minded person use evidence to debunk a chemist especially when the subject is his field.
mindphuk, if this is the kind of thrill and open mindedness that your talking about then you must be living in a dream land dude.
First show me where my points were answered, and then show me where your so called open minded atheists are at .
The purpose of this thread is not for people like beef , it's for people that are sitting on the sidelines, who haven't made up their minds yet and are willing to look at the evidence .
sorry but everything I saw on this forum tells me that atheists love non peer reviewed work, love non expert sources and will deny science. If this doesn't point to an emotional anti-intellectual world view there isn't much more I can say.
Mindphuk, I believe the atheists that are open minded are in the minority.
the intellectual ones like Bertrand russel, Aj Ayers and Antony flew would have admitted to at least the scientific evidence of the shroud instead of insulting our intelligence with these non scientific sources from pseudo scientific skeptic sites.
Aj ayers towards the end of his life had an nde and even said he could no longer say that their is no afterlife.
antony flew left atheism purely on reason and became a deist.
the new atheism movement is composed of mostly anti theists and not just atheists.
if you have open minded atheist friends then by all means let them study the shroud, just don't tell me the ones on here are reasonable or rational. I am attacking the ones on here because they are hypocrites and they know their sources aren't credible and are actually laughed at by the scientific experts that have studied the shroud.
ill give you just one question to get started on.
please show me one person in all of recorded history that has been crucified in the same manner that Christ and the man on the shroud has been crucified. I'm not even counting the many amazing properties of this image. You can even use skeptic sites for this.
right now I'm afraid that any more posts by me would be a waste of time because ill keep bringing up peer reviewed work, and they will answer with non peer reviewed work from non scientists.
your post also illustrates my point and this is why I say you can't form an opinion based on a few days of posts, you must study the shroud from all points eclectically. This is why former skeptic and non believer Mark Antonacci took over 20 years of research to believe in the shroud and he eventually gave his life to Christ, this is why it took years for doctor August Accetta to research the shroud and convert back to Christianity from agnosticism. What i am saying is START THE JOURNEY instead of posting info from non expert sites and then closing the book on the shroud.
newbies will also see this so if my posts can lead any seeker home than it wasnt wasted.
later dudes
