Saint Peter's Bones

[Minimalist]

It's an atheist forum and shitheads like him deserve to be told off.

If he wants to get blessed and blown by pervert priests he can go to a catholick board.

Because atheists can't be expected to be polite to their guests and to engage in civil discussions even when they disagree with them?

Believe me, Min, you and a few others here have more than confirmed the classic stereotype of the angry atheist.

I'll make you a deal, asshole.  On the day that I give a flying fuck what you think I'll send you a PM to let you know.

Hint:  Don't hold your breath waiting.

[ignoramus]

Jenny, this is the kind of pseudo-science that people glom onto when they are desperate to prove a pre-determined outcome.

"This CAN'T be the Shroud of Jesus...let's figure out why."

If you want to make a compelling case, Jenny, read books by scientists who are either neutral or supporters of the Shroud's authenticity. Then prove them wrong

I love this.
On the one hand these pseudo-scientists are "desperate to prove a pre-determined outcome", but on the other, "let's ask the supporters of the Shroud's authenticity", because we all know THEY WON'T BE "desperate to prove a pre-determined outcome".

[Jenny A]

---

Irrelevant.  That head is not human.  It is grossly not.  I gave you a citation for it about three posts back in this thread.  But frankly, that was just looking for confirmation of what my own eyes tell me and a ruler confirms.

Then you have discovered something that dozens, if not hundreds, of trained medical professionals have somehow missed in the course of their hands-on study of the shroud...

---

How is my measuring different than your laying down and trying to put the arms in the same position as the shroud?

Well?

RationalWiki - Head Too Large
The Shroud is rectangular, measuring some 4.4 by 1.1 meters. The cloth (specifically linen) is woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils. It shows faint but distinctive sepia images of the front and back of a naked man with his hands folded across his groin. The body image is muscular and 1.70 to 1.88 meters, or about 5'7" to 6'2", tall, with wound points as though they could have been caused by the process of crucifixion, but there is no generally accepted theory to explain how the image was impressed onto the cloth. However, it is accepted that the image is not anatomically correct — the head is 5% too large for its body, the nose is disproportionate, and the arms are too long. Source.

Secular Web Kiosk - Head Too Small
That the shroud head is too small is visually obvious when it is compared to normally proportioned humans on the same scale. The dimensions of the small and narrow head of the shroud are about nine-tenths the male norm. This may not sound like much, but because of the square-cube law modest differences in dimensions result in big changes in volume, so the capacity of the cranium was at least 30 percent below expectations. Source.


Jenny, this is the kind of pseudo-science that people glom onto when they are desperate to prove a pre-determined outcome.

"This CAN'T be the Shroud of Jesus...let's figure out why."

If you want to make a compelling case, Jenny, read books by scientists who are either neutral or supporters of the Shroud's authenticity. Then prove them wrong.

What I've read suggests it was made in the 14th century when Europe was a virtual relic factory.  I haven't the time or inclination to read tomes on the shroud. Summarize the connection to Jesus.  Any evidence it was his burial cloth?  Unless it connects to Jesus it's just a somewhat mysterious bit of cloth.  And if it were Jesus' burial cloth, what then?  What exactly would that prove?

You labor under the notion that somehow atheists, or me in particular, need to spend time and energy disproving all evidence of god in order to shore up our disbelief.  Not so.  I've never seen evidence of the divine that gave me so much as a twinge.  And I have no real interest in investigating every half baked relic or miracle as if it mattered.

[Randy Carson]

You labor under the notion that somehow atheists, or me in particular, need to spend time and energy disproving all evidence of god in order to shore up our disbelief.  Not so.  I've never seen evidence of the divine that gave me so much as a twinge.  And I have no real interest in investigating every half baked relic or miracle as if it mattered.

How do you know that the Shroud is "half-baked" without investigating it? You just decided that in advance of actually learning more?



Atheist: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Theist: Well, consider the Shroud of Turin - an extraordinary artifact that science cannot explain.

Atheist: I'm not interested in investigating every bit of your "evidence" as if it mattered.

Theist:

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You labor under the notion that somehow atheists, or me in particular, need to spend time and energy disproving all evidence of god in order to shore up our disbelief.  Not so.  I've never seen evidence of the divine that gave me so much as a twinge.  And I have no real interest in investigating every half baked relic or miracle as if it mattered.

How do you know that the Shroud is "half-baked" without investigating it? You just decided that in advance of actually learning more?



Atheist: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Theist: Well, consider the Shroud of Turin - an extraordinary artifact that science cannot explain.

Atheist: I'm not interested in investigating every bit of your "evidence" as if it mattered.

Theist:

Please explain the chain of custody for the shroud from 33 AD to today.

[Minimalist]

How do you know that the Shroud is "half-baked" without investigating it? You just decided that in advance of actually learning more?

It's been investigated.  It is a medieval work of art...( I don't know if it was a "forgery" because I don't know what was in the mind of the artist when he made it.)  The artist is not responsible for the claims of pious fools who lived centuries after him.

Case closed, dummy.

[Jenny A]

You labor under the notion that somehow atheists, or me in particular, need to spend time and energy disproving all evidence of god in order to shore up our disbelief.  Not so.  I've never seen evidence of the divine that gave me so much as a twinge.  And I have no real interest in investigating every half baked relic or miracle as if it mattered.

How do you know that the Shroud is "half-baked" without investigating it? You just decided that in advance of actually learning more?



Atheist: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Theist: Well, consider the Shroud of Turin - an extraordinary artifact that science cannot explain.

Atheist: I'm not interested in investigating every bit of your "evidence" as if it mattered.

Theist:

The Shroud is an extraordinary claim.   I see no evidence connecting it (be it supernatural or as is most likely not) to Jesus.  Connection?  Nor do I see any evidence showing it to be supernatural.

Atheist: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Theist: Well, consider the Shroud of Turin - an extraordinary artifact that science cannot explain.

Atheist: That it is extraordinary is really just another extraordinary claim for which there is no extraordinary evidence.  Somewhere along the line you still need extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.