FREE TAPATALK APP

catsmate1 · 14th March 2012, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Regarding 21st century knowledge -- I suspect that the Shroud cannot be recreated using current knowledge.

Untrue. As you have had pointed out to you more than once the shroud has been recreated using medieval techniques.

catsmate1 · 14th March 2012, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Alex Cured

a) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...ree-style-tab/

b) it saves a bit of vertical space; tabs self-organise in trees; easy to reorder trees and tabs; trees expand/collapse with/without focus.
I think it's neat(er)

Yep it's one of the more useful add-ons, though I'm having problems with trees not expanding/collapsing on my big notebook; I think I keep too many tabs open there.

Craig B · 15th March 2012, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I'm not claiming that the Shroud is miraculous -- but, neither am I claiming that it is not. I guess that I'm "neutral" so far ... - Whatever, for now, I'm not claiming anything about "miracles."

"Not claiming ... For now ... So far ... " Very strange wording! Does your complex debating timetable set down a time when you will start making such a claim? See your Shrouddebates site, "Our Purpose"

Quote:

1.3. (“Authentic” meaning simply that the Shroud was, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus — at this point, we are not claiming that there is anything supernatural about the Shroud...)

Same site, "Opening Statement"

Quote:

(By “authentic,” we mean only that the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus. “Authenticity,” here, does not require that anything “supernatural” be involved.)

I have asked before, why the different wording? Let me put it this way: do you personally believe the Turin cloth was the Shroud of Jesus, and do you wish to convince other people so to believe? If so, make that clear right away. If not, say not. And do you, or do you not, believe Jesus to have been a supernatural figure, able to come alive again after being killed?

MRC_Hans · 15th March 2012, 12:41 AM

OK, I appreaciate you are seriously trying to answer.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Paladin (&Hans),
- They didn't leave the "crown of thorns" on Jesus' head -- what they left were some significant puncture wounds.

Which you can, at best, see on a shroud as blood stains (although dead bodies generally don't bleed much from puncture wounds), which could OTOH come from a number of different kinds of wounds.

Quote:

- Do you want references? (I ask that because providing the references will slow me down -- and probably, some of my answers will seem reasonable enough in themselves so as to not require references.)

I don't need it here. I can see pictures of the shroud myself, and I see no distinct spots that must come from puncture wounds. And, of course, none of us see spots that can be proved to be blood stains at all.

Hans

MRC_Hans · 15th March 2012, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Paladin (& Hans),
- The quick answers:
1) I assume that it would only take one swing of an iron bar (which is what they used, if I remember correctly) to break one tibia or fibula.
2) From my understanding, the Romans generally avoided crucifixions on Fridays so as not to irritate the Jewish power brokers. In this case however, according to the New Testament, they were pressured by the Jewish Power brokers to do it, and to finish the job, before the Sabbath (beginning Friday evening).
- Would you like references?

Do you realize that most of what you say here is conjecture?

Anyway, we're talking about the shroud. Since we can't expect impressions on a shroud to reflect bone fractures, it is really irrelevant.

Hans

MRC_Hans · 15th March 2012, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Ward,
- I don't know -- but, I do expect quantum physics to change a lot of our notions about the nature of reality...
- For me, a very interesting video.
--- Jabba

My bolding

Whaat? .....OK, I'm going to pretend you did not bring quantum physics into this, or if you did, you were joking.

Hans

IanS · 15th March 2012, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Regarding 21st century knowledge -- I suspect that the Shroud cannot be recreated using current knowledge.

- Thanks for the questions.

As I've tried emphasise throughout - any discussions about the nature of the image or about blood spots etc., are rendered irrelevant in light of the C14.

Why? Why does the C14 trump everything else? Because even if you could prove beyond all doubt that the image truly was that of a dead person, you would still be left with the fact that the C14 clearly shows that the cloth and it's image are only about 700 years old ....

... so even if the image was genuine, it would only be the image of a person living 700 years ago.

You could spend a lifetime indulging subjective arguments about what the image shows and whether it's a real bodily stain or whether it’s painted etc etc. ... but since objective scientific dating shows that the cloth itself is only 700 years old, then the image, whatever it is, cannot be older than 700 years.

You want to say that maybe the 700 years date is wrong? Fine, in that case you need to overturn the C14 by showing an equally credible scientific research paper which establishes a date vastly different from the current C14 dates. That would require something like a new and even more accurate C14 test.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Ladewig,
- I'm not claiming that the Shroud is miraculous -- but, neither am I claiming that it is not. I guess that I'm "neutral" so far.
- One problem is that what is "miraculous" now -- in that it doesn't fit with current scientific principles -- might fit quite snuggly with future scientific principles.
- Whatever, for now, I'm not claiming anything about "miracles."

It's actually a huge problem that many religious people seem to think that certain scientific discoveries, particularly Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Relativity Theory (GR) are so "odd" and "incomprehensible" that they predict or allow something very similar to "miracles".

That's a huge mistake.

Neither QM nor GR nor anything else in science implies the existence of any miracles. In fact science very clearly shows the exact opposite - there are no miracles in QM, in GR, or in anything else that science has ever discovered or explained.

The only reason that many religious fundamentalists try to claim something miraculous about such things as QM is that their scientific education is a million miles below the standard required to even begin working/studying in the field of QM research (plus of course the fact that many religious people are looking for any possible excuse to try claiming that science is so mysteries to them that it must be a miracle ... and hence a confirmation of God, Jesus and their religious beliefs). But there are literally no genuine research physicists who believe that QM is in any way miraculous … not even the most vehement US Christian scientists really think that the details of QM or GR indicate direct miracles from God (though the most evangelical of them may be deluded enough to think that parts of QM that they don’t understand may be a sign that it’s all so complicated that surely only a supernatural God could ever fully understand it).

Squeegee Beckenheim · 15th March 2012, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by Alex Cured

b) it saves a bit of vertical space; tabs self-organise in trees; easy to reorder trees and tabs; trees expand/collapse with/without focus.
I think it's neat(er)

Hmm, not sure that would be for me. Tabs don't take up much horizontal space, given that writing is horizontal, but that looks like quite a large area of screen to take up with them vertical. I'm not overly fond of trees, either. And I can re-organise my tabs easily enough with Tab Mix Plus.

That said, though, I'm sufficiently intrigued to give it a go. Never let it be said that I don't approach life with a sense of adventure.

Alex Cured · 15th March 2012, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Yep it's one of the more useful add-ons, though I'm having problems with trees not expanding/collapsing on my big notebook; I think I keep too many tabs open there.

It's definitely not bug free (The one I get occasionally is, if I have too many tabs open, and open a new tab it can be invisible in the list and the wrong tab is highlighted: Usually a restart fixes that ... it's been a while since I've seen that problem though)

realpaladin · 15th March 2012, 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by IanS

As I've tried emphasise throughout - any discussions about the nature of the image or about blood spots etc., are rendered irrelevant in light of the C14.

That does not mean these discussions can not take place...

There is no harm in digressing sometimes... it often serves other purposes than just the 'I am right and you are wrong.'

Critical thinking is exactly that: 'critical thinking'. Not Pilpul or 'debate' with a 'winner' and a 'loser'.

So don't be so uptight and learn that in discussions people *will* avoid anyone who keeps 'hammering' on the single 'winning' item.

Also, lighten up a bit.

Alex Cured · 15th March 2012, 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Hmm, not sure that would be for me. Tabs don't take up much horizontal space, given that writing is horizontal, but that looks like quite a large area of screen to take up with them vertical. I'm not overly fond of trees, either. And I can re-organise my tabs easily enough with Tab Mix Plus.

That said, though, I'm sufficiently intrigued to give it a go. Never let it be said that I don't approach life with a sense of adventure.

you need to get out more

Squeegee Beckenheim · 15th March 2012, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Hmm, not sure that would be for me. Tabs don't take up much horizontal space, given that writing is horizontal, but that looks like quite a large area of screen to take up with them vertical. I'm not overly fond of trees, either. And I can re-organise my tabs easily enough with Tab Mix Plus.

That said, though, I'm sufficiently intrigued to give it a go. Never let it be said that I don't approach life with a sense of adventure.

Giving it a go, and I'm not entirely convinced. It doesn't sort things in to trees for me because I tend to open lots of tabs at once. So I'll have, say, the "Religion And Philosophy" forum open, and will scroll down the page looking for all topics that I'm interested in. As I go I'll click on each topic header and drag it upwards - my DragIt mouse gesture for "open in background tab". But opening it in a background tab means that it opens as a non-nested tab, and there's no option to change that. So the whole tree thing doesn't happen for me.

The other issue is that of taking up space. It's got the option to auto-hide itself but, if it does that, then it seems not to expand while a tab is loading. So if I open, say, 15 tabs from the "Religion And Philosophy" forum then a few will probably still be loading when I've finished and want to start reading the first tab. So I either have to wait for it, or have it on "auto-shrink", which isn't ideal.

I'll live with it for a week to see if I end up preferring it but, at the moment, I'm far from convinced.

What a wonderfully on-topic post this was.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 15th March 2012, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Alex Cured

you need to get out more

Going out's overrated. Besides which, I go out for a living. I'm not about to start doing it in my spare time, too.

Alex Cured · 15th March 2012, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Untrue. As you have had pointed out to you more than once the shroud has been recreated using medieval techniques.

Sadly, a little thing like evidence isn't going to change the "couldn't be faked" claim being repeated

Alex Cured · 15th March 2012, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Going out's overrated. Besides which, I go out for a living. I'm not about to start doing it in my spare time, too.

Something to do with your dislike of trees?

Alex Cured · 15th March 2012, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Giving it a go, and I'm not entirely convinced. It doesn't sort things in to trees for me because I tend to open lots of tabs at once. So I'll have, say, the "Religion And Philosophy" forum open, and will scroll down the page looking for all topics that I'm interested in. As I go I'll click on each topic header and drag it upwards - my DragIt mouse gesture for "open in background tab". But opening it in a background tab means that it opens as a non-nested tab, and there's no option to change that. So the whole tree thing doesn't happen for me.

The other issue is that of taking up space. It's got the option to auto-hide itself but, if it does that, then it seems not to expand while a tab is loading. So if I open, say, 15 tabs from the "Religion And Philosophy" forum then a few will probably still be loading when I've finished and want to start reading the first tab. So I either have to wait for it, or have it on "auto-shrink", which isn't ideal.

I'll live with it for a week to see if I end up preferring it but, at the moment, I'm far from convinced.

What a wonderfully on-topic post this was.

Oh well, continuing the complete derail ....
Drag-it sounds interesting and in the spirit of reciprocity I shall give it a go

I use Session Manager with a different session for each major site I follow because I like to resume where I left things and this seems to work well with the tab tree, but anyway, too each his own ...

Now back to this ridiculous fake shroud thing...

Squeegee Beckenheim · 15th March 2012, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by Alex Cured

Oh well, continuing the complete derail ....
Drag-it sounds interesting and in the spirit of reciprocity I shall give it a go

Drag de Go was better as it allowed you to use gestures to execute scripts and was compatible with other add-ons like NextPlease, making it really flexible. But the developer stopped supporting it, and DragIt is the next best thing.

The only problem with it is that once you've got used to using it you'll find working on any computer that doesn't have it really slow and frustrating.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 15th March 2012, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Drag de Go was better as it allowed you to use gestures to execute scripts and was compatible with other add-ons like NextPlease, making it really flexible. But the developer stopped supporting it, and DragIt is the next best thing.

The only problem with it is that once you've got used to using it you'll find working on any computer that doesn't have it really slow and frustrating.

Actually, scratch that. I've not checked whether new add-ons have been added for a while and have just found Fire Gestures which looks like it'll do the same job as DragIt, plus all the scripting, etc. I'm going to try that instead.

Roger Ramjets · 15th March 2012, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by IanS

Why does the C14 trump everything else? Because even if you could prove beyond all doubt that the image truly was that of a dead person, you would still be left with the fact that the C14 clearly shows that the cloth and it's image are only about 700 years old ....

Wrong! If Christ really did resurrect in this shroud then its carbon 14 content may have been boosted to a higher level by the burst of supernatural radiation. Therefore the cloth would appear to be younger than it really is.

Or perhaps God deliberately changed the carbon 14 dating results so people would still need faith to believe in Him. Or did the Devil do it to make people turn away from the church, so he will get their souls when they go to Hell?

If you believe in miracles then you have already rejected scientific principles, anything is possible and God trumps everything...

Squeegee Beckenheim · 15th March 2012, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Actually, scratch that. I've not checked whether new add-ons have been added for a while and have just found Fire Gestures which looks like it'll do the same job as DragIt, plus all the scripting, etc. I'm going to try that instead.

..and I've already abandoned it due to one or two really stupid design decisions.

Right, derail over, for realsies this time.

MRC_Hans · 15th March 2012, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Wrong! If Christ really did resurrect in this shroud then its carbon 14 content may have been boosted to a higher level by the burst of supernatural radiation. Therefore the cloth would appear to be younger than it really is.

Or perhaps God deliberately changed the carbon 14 dating results so people would still need faith to believe in Him. Or did the Devil do it to make people turn away from the church, so he will get their souls when they go to Hell?

If you believe in miracles then you have already rejected scientific principles, anything is possible and God trumps everything...

That is all fair and true, and if somebody were to say, "I believe the shroud of Turin is genuine, and I don't care about science, because I know Jesus lived." - Then I'd say, "fine, I hope you're happy in your faith!" and that would be it.

But that's not what these guys say. They say, "I can prove to you that Jesus lived, and one piece of evidence is the shroud of Turin, you have to accept that it is positive proof that Jesus existed". And THEN they are obliged to live up to scientific standards.

Basically: They can belive what they will, but if they want to convince me there are requirements (and I, obviously, decide which).

Hans

DC · 15th March 2012, 02:55 AM

the only miracle is that people still believe that nonsense stories.

IanS · 15th March 2012, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by realpaladin

That does not mean these discussions can not take place...

There is no harm in digressing sometimes... it often serves other purposes than just the 'I am right and you are wrong.'

Critical thinking is exactly that: 'critical thinking'. Not Pilpul or 'debate' with a 'winner' and a 'loser'.

So don't be so uptight and learn that in discussions people *will* avoid anyone who keeps 'hammering' on the single 'winning' item.

Also, lighten up a bit.

Sure, there are different ways that any of us may prefer to proceed in any discussions like this, whether it‘s about the shroud or creationist ideas, or any other religious claim.

What I'm trying to do is stop Jabba going off down multiple subjective avenues about such things as the nature of the image, blood spots, vanillin coating, the weaving pattern, and debating hundreds of different articles “published” by various religious shroud groups (often masquerading as independent scientists), and instead to focus Jabba’s attention on the fact that the only genuine evidence we have for an accurately determined date is that produced in 1988 by the C14.

It may be fun to as you say “lighten up” and discuss all the hundreds of other claims made by religious groups about the authenticity of the shroud. That’s fine if you are not being serious about what the shroud actually is, and if you just want that “light” discussion. But it should be clearly realised that none of those discussions, however interesting anyone may personally find them, are of much if any use unless the C14 can be overturned (and so far, it can't).

By all means lets “lighten up” and have a knockabout demolition of the shroud claims … but first, lets clearly recognise that we have an accurately determined date for the shroud … and as far as any of us can honestly tell it’s 14th century.

realpaladin · 15th March 2012, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by IanS

What I'm trying to do is stop Jabba going off down multiple subjective avenues about such things as the nature of the image, blood spots, <snippety>
that the only genuine evidence we have for an accurately determined date is that produced in 1988 by the C14.

Won't work. There is not 1 single thread on this forum where a proponent of some theory or other will *not* digress.

You can not force them into a direction you want. But besides driving your own point home, why would you want to?

It is their show anyway, and you have to make allowance for that it is a person you are talking to and not a robot.

Originally Posted by IanS

It may be fun to as you say “lighten up” and discuss all the hundreds of other claims made by religious groups about the authenticity of the shroud. That’s fine if you are not being serious about what the shroud actually is, and if you just want that “light” discussion.

Stop projecting/judging. Not everyone is the same as you.

It does not follow that a 'light-heartedness' means that the matter is not taken seriously.

You do not have an inkling on what the people on this forum are/know/do and you make assertions about everyone and everything.

Do you have an authority problem?

Originally Posted by IanS

But it should be clearly realised that none of those discussions, however interesting anyone may personally find them, are of much if any use unless the C14 can be overturned (and so far, it can't).

Be that as it may, it is not you who decide what value others place on which part of which discussion.

Originally Posted by IanS

By all means lets “lighten up” and have a knockabout demolition of the shroud claims … but first, lets clearly recognise that we have an accurately determined date for the shroud … and as far as any of us can honestly tell it’s 14th century.

You are so blinded by your 'being right' that you have not seen the real item that is being discussed here.

As stated earlier, by others... it is not a discussion on 'is the shroud fake', it is a discussion on 'is the shroud a miracle'.

There is a subtle difference there and it is Jabba that chooses which arguments to try and use to convince the rest.

If Jabba stops using the C14 then the C14 part is moot, no matter how right you are.

Again, lighten up, and try to see nuances in communication, not the black and white of wrong and right.

Craig B · 15th March 2012, 04:30 AM

Realpaladin

It is NOT a discussion on whether the Shroud is a miracle! Jabba is not claiming it's a miracle, although I am trying to force him to come clean on what in fact he IS claiming.

On the other hand, it IS a claim of wrong and right. If it once covered the body of Jesus, then it is not a product of fourteenth century artistry. Wrong or right. This is not a philosophical question with fuzzy ill-defined answers. It is entirely unambiguous and clear cut.

Alex Cured · 15th March 2012, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by realpaladin

That does not mean these discussions can not take place...

There is no harm in digressing sometimes... it often serves other purposes than just the 'I am right and you are wrong.'

Critical thinking is exactly that: 'critical thinking'. Not Pilpul or 'debate' with a 'winner' and a 'loser'.

So don't be so uptight and learn that in discussions people *will* avoid anyone who keeps 'hammering' on the single 'winning' item.

Also, lighten up a bit.

It might be useful I suppose to, say a psychology student, trying to understand how wishful thinking distorts rationality, but I have some sympathy with the OP.

I mean when the whistle blows and you've just won the game 10-nil (and the other team was lucky to get nil), it's frustrating to hear them arguing that they really won (or at any rate didn't lose) because of a dispute over the ball

realpaladin · 15th March 2012, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by Craig B

Realpaladin

It is NOT a discussion on whether the Shroud is a miracle! Jabba is not claiming it's a miracle, although I am trying to force him to come clean on what in fact he IS claiming.

On the other hand, it IS a claim of wrong and right. If it once covered the body of Jesus, then it is not a product of fourteenth century artistry. Wrong or right. This is not a philosophical question with fuzzy ill-defined answers. It is entirely unambiguous and clear cut.

You can not *force* anyone to admit they are wrong on an Internet forum. The best you could achieve is that they simply ignore this thread and go start the same discussion elsewhere.

On the other hand, some of the posters here can be swayed into accepting their initial premises were incorrect.

After all, you *know* you are right, and Jabba *knows* he is right. And what have you achieved by just proving your point? The people that thought you were right all along still think that and the people that thought otherwise think you are a jerk who can't admit he is wrong.

No world deciding battles are fought here on this forum. And besides, it is my opinion that educating people is rather more important than just pointing out you are right. You know, the E in JREF...

So unless you can guide someone along it is nothing but a 'let's gang up on that poor crackpot and beat his reasoning into a pulp'.

That, to me, is pretty useless.

realpaladin · 15th March 2012, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by Alex Cured

It might be useful I suppose to, say a psychology student, trying to understand how wishful thinking distorts rationality, but I have some sympathy with the OP.

I mean when the whistle blows and you've just won the game 10-nil (and the other team was lucky to get nil), it's frustrating to hear them arguing that they really won (or at any rate didn't lose) because of a dispute over the ball

Well, to me, it is not about winning or losing... it is whether I can make the other party understand my point of view.

Just citing a bunch of stuff and doing exact science is what I do for a living, but on a forum (a discussion place) I also keep an open mind (I have conceded being wrong more than once... it happens

) and try to have an eye for the human factor.

Edit: that is why I sometimes choose the side of the person who is 'clearly' wrong... because nothing will change in the world if we all just dig trenches and start carpetbombing each other with 'truths'.

Alex Cured · 15th March 2012, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by realpaladin

Well, to me, it is not about winning or losing... it is whether I can make the other party understand my point of view.

Just citing a bunch of stuff and doing exact science is what I do for a living, but on a forum (a discussion place) I also keep an open mind (I have conceded being wrong more than once... it happens

) and try to have an eye for the human factor.

Edit: that is why I sometimes choose the side of the person who is 'clearly' wrong... because nothing will change in the world if we all just dig trenches and start carpetbombing each other with 'truths'.

Sure. Actually I sympathise with what you're saying too

I'm sure you're right that the person with the other point of view is very unlikely to be swayed and if it was say a private email conversation I wouldn't bother with the argument either (well probably), but "winning the argument" might well be significant for others who may be overhearing the conversation and still have open minds (if such things exist

)

X · 15th March 2012, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by carlitos

Part 2 of the slideshow works, but the navigation on that site is brutal.

100% paraedolia.

I think so. I almost wish I had asked the mods earlier to separate the "Is the shroud authentic" discussion from the "Seeing things in the shroud" discussion. Doesn't much matter, now. The latter would only be a repetitive chanting of paraedolia, and this historicity discussion is more educational.

I am curious to know if there is any value to the idea that the makers of the shroud may have intentionally included some minor imagery in the larger, overall picture.

Alex Cured · 15th March 2012, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by X

I think so. I almost wish I had asked the mods earlier to separate the "Is the shroud authentic" discussion from the "Seeing things in the shroud" discussion. Doesn't much matter, now. The latter would only be a repetitive chanting of paraedolia, and this historicity discussion is more educational.

I am curious to know if there is any value to the idea that the makers of the shroud may have intentionally included some minor imagery in the larger, overall picture.

the paraedolia bit would mean that they wouldn't have needed to

IanS · 15th March 2012, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Wrong! If Christ really did resurrect in this shroud then its carbon 14 content may have been boosted to a higher level by the burst of supernatural radiation. Therefore the cloth would appear to be younger than it really is.

What is "supernatural radiation"?

If the claim is supposed to be that shroud believers can invent any idea they want, such as inventing "supernatural radiation", then firstly there is nothing to stop someone else inventing the precise opposite by saying for example that "supernatural radiation" is "natural non-radiation". And secondly, anyone seriously thinking they can invent their own "truths" in that sort of fashion is less in danger of ever making a meaningful claim about the shroud, and more in danger of exhibiting serious mental disorder.

Fortunately, Jabba is by no means doing anything so silly as that when he says he believes the shroud is genuine.

Alex Cured · 15th March 2012, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by IanS

What is "supernatural radiation"?

If the claim is supposed to be that shroud believers can invent any idea they want, such as inventing "supernatural radiation", then firstly there is nothing to stop someone else inventing the precise opposite by saying for example that "supernatural radiation" is "natural non-radiation". And secondly, anyone seriously thinking they can invent their own "truths" in that sort of fashion is less in danger of ever making a meaningful claim about the shroud, and more in danger of exhibiting serious mental disorder.

Fortunately, Jabba is by no means doing anything so silly as that when he says he believes the shroud is genuine.

A good point. 'Supernatural radiation' would clearly leave no residue (or it would be 'natural'), ergo the shroud is fake. Q.E.D.

IanS · 15th March 2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by realpaladin

Won't work. There is not 1 single thread on this forum where a proponent of some theory or other will *not* digress.

You can not force them into a direction you want. But besides driving your own point home, why would you want to?

It is their show anyway, and you have to make allowance for that it is a person you are talking to and not a robot.

Stop projecting/judging. Not everyone is the same as you.

It does not follow that a 'light-heartedness' means that the matter is not taken seriously.

You do not have an inkling on what the people on this forum are/know/do and you make assertions about everyone and everything.

Do you have an authority problem?

Be that as it may, it is not you who decide what value others place on which part of which discussion.

You are so blinded by your 'being right' that you have not seen the real item that is being discussed here.

As stated earlier, by others... it is not a discussion on 'is the shroud fake', it is a discussion on 'is the shroud a miracle'.

There is a subtle difference there and it is Jabba that chooses which arguments to try and use to convince the rest.

If Jabba stops using the C14 then the C14 part is moot, no matter how right you are.

Again, lighten up, and try to see nuances in communication, not the black and white of wrong and right.

OK, so you are obviously very keen on your own opinions, and for some reason under the impression that you should be telling other people what line of discussion they can and can’t take. But I'm really not interested in your argument about it, thanks.

catsmate1 · 15th March 2012, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Alex Cured

It's definitely not bug free (The one I get occasionally is, if I have too many tabs open, and open a new tab it can be invisible in the list and the wrong tab is highlighted: Usually a restart fixes that ... it's been a while since I've seen that problem though)

Yeah that happens to me sometimes too; if I click on the taskbar, select 'Customize' and then exit from the customisation window it works OK.

Jon. · 15th March 2012, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by IanS

What is "supernatural radiation"?

I think it's related to what my Star Trek: Next Generation-watching friends and I used to call "super spiffy particles." They sure got the Enterprise D out of lots of scrapes!

The Norseman · 15th March 2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by realpaladin

Won't work. There is not 1 single thread on this forum where a proponent of some theory or other will *not* digress.

You can not force them into a direction you want. But besides driving your own point home, why would you want to?

It is their show anyway, and you have to make allowance for that it is a person you are talking to and not a robot.

Stop projecting/judging. Not everyone is the same as you.

It does not follow that a 'light-heartedness' means that the matter is not taken seriously.

You do not have an inkling on what the people on this forum are/know/do and you make assertions about everyone and everything.

Do you have an authority problem?

Be that as it may, it is not you who decide what value others place on which part of which discussion.

You are so blinded by your 'being right' that you have not seen the real item that is being discussed here.

Why are you personalizing this to such an extent? You have some real-world experiences that directly contribute to the historicity and/or helpful determination of whether or not the shroud is of a human being. Could you maybe stick with that? I personally find it much more fascinating and applicable.

Quote:

As stated earlier, by others... it is not a discussion on 'is the shroud fake', it is a discussion on 'is the shroud a miracle'.

There is a subtle difference there and it is Jabba that chooses which arguments to try and use to convince the rest.

If Jabba stops using the C14 then the C14 part is moot, no matter how right you are.

Jabba can stop using carbon 14 dating if he wishes but since his statements are really a thread-drift from the OP, then he's really in no position to dictate anything either.

Apparently he's already got several websites from which he liberally pulls information from, including a myriad of rules set up for a 'proper debate'; but if he wants to share here on JREF in this thread, he gets to go with the flow like everyone else.

You may be correct in that there is a subtle, but important distinction between the shroud being a fake versus the shroud being a miracle, but there's enough evidence for it to be shown that it's a fake (as in not being the actual shroud of Jesus) and that it's not a miracle (no quantum black holes or supernaturally caused brief blasts of radiation).

Biscuit · 15th March 2012, 10:44 AM

Jabba,

If you are not a proponent of any "miraculous" qualities of the shroud then why is this thread called "Miracle of the shroud"?

tsig · 15th March 2012, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by realpaladin

Well, to me, it is not about winning or losing... it is whether I can make the other party understand my point of view.

Just citing a bunch of stuff and doing exact science is what I do for a living, but on a forum (a discussion place) I also keep an open mind (I have conceded being wrong more than once... it happens

) and try to have an eye for the human factor.

Edit: that is why I sometimes choose the side of the person who is 'clearly' wrong... because nothing will change in the world if we all just dig trenches and start carpetbombing each other with 'truths'.

How would you go about making the other party understand your point of view?

Squeegee Beckenheim · 15th March 2012, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

You may be correct in that there is a subtle, but important distinction between the shroud being a fake versus the shroud being a miracle, but there's enough evidence for it to be shown that it's a fake (as in not being the actual shroud of Jesus) and that it's not a miracle (no quantum black holes or supernaturally caused brief blasts of radiation).

I'd have thought that it being fake would immediately preclude it being miraculous in any case.

15th March 2012, 12:31 AM	#243
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,320	Originally Posted by Jabba - I'm not claiming that the Shroud is miraculous -- but, neither am I claiming that it is not. I guess that I'm "neutral" so far ... - Whatever, for now, I'm not claiming anything about "miracles." "Not claiming ... For now ... So far ... " Very strange wording! Does your complex debating timetable set down a time when you will start making such a claim? See your Shrouddebates site, "Our Purpose" Quote: 1.3. (“Authentic” meaning simply that the Shroud was, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus — at this point, we are not claiming that there is anything supernatural about the Shroud...) Same site, "Opening Statement" Quote: (By “authentic,” we mean only that the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus. “Authenticity,” here, does not require that anything “supernatural” be involved.) I have asked before, why the different wording? Let me put it this way: do you personally believe the Turin cloth was the Shroud of Jesus, and do you wish to convince other people so to believe? If so, make that clear right away. If not, say not. And do you, or do you not, believe Jesus to have been a supernatural figure, able to come alive again after being killed?
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,320

15th March 2012, 12:41 AM	#244
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,604	OK, I appreaciate you are seriously trying to answer. Originally Posted by Jabba Paladin (&Hans), - They didn't leave the "crown of thorns" on Jesus' head -- what they left were some significant puncture wounds. Which you can, at best, see on a shroud as blood stains (although dead bodies generally don't bleed much from puncture wounds), which could OTOH come from a number of different kinds of wounds. Quote: - Do you want references? (I ask that because providing the references will slow me down -- and probably, some of my answers will seem reasonable enough in themselves so as to not require references.) I don't need it here. I can see pictures of the shroud myself, and I see no distinct spots that must come from puncture wounds. And, of course, none of us see spots that can be proved to be blood stains at all. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

15th March 2012, 12:46 AM	#245
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,604	Originally Posted by Jabba Paladin (& Hans), - The quick answers: 1) I assume that it would only take one swing of an iron bar (which is what they used, if I remember correctly) to break one tibia or fibula. 2) From my understanding, the Romans generally avoided crucifixions on Fridays so as not to irritate the Jewish power brokers. In this case however, according to the New Testament, they were pressured by the Jewish Power brokers to do it, and to finish the job, before the Sabbath (beginning Friday evening). - Would you like references? Do you realize that most of what you say here is conjecture? Anyway, we're talking about the shroud. Since we can't expect impressions on a shroud to reflect bone fractures, it is really irrelevant. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

15th March 2012, 12:49 AM	#246
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,604	Originally Posted by Jabba Ward, - I don't know -- but, I do expect quantum physics to change a lot of our notions about the nature of reality... - For me, a very interesting video. --- Jabba My bolding Whaat? .....OK, I'm going to pretend you did not bring quantum physics into this, or if you did, you were joking. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

15th March 2012, 12:50 AM	#247
IanS Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by Jabba - Regarding 21st century knowledge -- I suspect that the Shroud cannot be recreated using current knowledge. - Thanks for the questions. As I've tried emphasise throughout - any discussions about the nature of the image or about blood spots etc., are rendered irrelevant in light of the C14. Why? Why does the C14 trump everything else? Because even if you could prove beyond all doubt that the image truly was that of a dead person, you would still be left with the fact that the C14 clearly shows that the cloth and it's image are only about 700 years old .... ... so even if the image was genuine, it would only be the image of a person living 700 years ago. You could spend a lifetime indulging subjective arguments about what the image shows and whether it's a real bodily stain or whether it’s painted etc etc. ... but since objective scientific dating shows that the cloth itself is only 700 years old, then the image, whatever it is, cannot be older than 700 years. You want to say that maybe the 700 years date is wrong? Fine, in that case you need to overturn the C14 by showing an equally credible scientific research paper which establishes a date vastly different from the current C14 dates. That would require something like a new and even more accurate C14 test. Originally Posted by Jabba Ladewig, - I'm not claiming that the Shroud is miraculous -- but, neither am I claiming that it is not. I guess that I'm "neutral" so far. - One problem is that what is "miraculous" now -- in that it doesn't fit with current scientific principles -- might fit quite snuggly with future scientific principles. - Whatever, for now, I'm not claiming anything about "miracles." It's actually a huge problem that many religious people seem to think that certain scientific discoveries, particularly Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Relativity Theory (GR) are so "odd" and "incomprehensible" that they predict or allow something very similar to "miracles". That's a huge mistake. Neither QM nor GR nor anything else in science implies the existence of any miracles. In fact science very clearly shows the exact opposite - there are no miracles in QM, in GR, or in anything else that science has ever discovered or explained. The only reason that many religious fundamentalists try to claim something miraculous about such things as QM is that their scientific education is a million miles below the standard required to even begin working/studying in the field of QM research (plus of course the fact that many religious people are looking for any possible excuse to try claiming that science is so mysteries to them that it must be a miracle ... and hence a confirmation of God, Jesus and their religious beliefs). But there are literally no genuine research physicists who believe that QM is in any way miraculous … not even the most vehement US Christian scientists really think that the details of QM or GR indicate direct miracles from God (though the most evangelical of them may be deluded enough to think that parts of QM that they don’t understand may be a sign that it’s all so complicated that surely only a supernatural God could ever fully understand it).
IanS Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,107

14th March 2012, 05:46 PM	#241
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,241	Originally Posted by Jabba - Regarding 21st century knowledge -- I suspect that the Shroud cannot be recreated using current knowledge. Untrue. As you have had pointed out to you more than once the shroud has been recreated using medieval techniques.

14th March 2012, 05:49 PM	#242
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,241	Originally Posted by Alex Cured a) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...ree-style-tab/ b) it saves a bit of vertical space; tabs self-organise in trees; easy to reorder trees and tabs; trees expand/collapse with/without focus. I think it's neat(er) Yep it's one of the more useful add-ons, though I'm having problems with trees not expanding/collapsing on my big notebook; I think I keep too many tabs open there.

15th March 2012, 01:32 AM	#248
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,429	Originally Posted by Alex Cured b) it saves a bit of vertical space; tabs self-organise in trees; easy to reorder trees and tabs; trees expand/collapse with/without focus. I think it's neat(er) Hmm, not sure that would be for me. Tabs don't take up much horizontal space, given that writing is horizontal, but that looks like quite a large area of screen to take up with them vertical. I'm not overly fond of trees, either. And I can re-organise my tabs easily enough with Tab Mix Plus. That said, though, I'm sufficiently intrigued to give it a go. Never let it be said that I don't approach life with a sense of adventure.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

15th March 2012, 01:50 AM	#249
Alex Cured Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Terra Septentrionalis Incognita Posts: 251	Originally Posted by catsmate1 Yep it's one of the more useful add-ons, though I'm having problems with trees not expanding/collapsing on my big notebook; I think I keep too many tabs open there. It's definitely not bug free (The one I get occasionally is, if I have too many tabs open, and open a new tab it can be invisible in the list and the wrong tab is highlighted: Usually a restart fixes that ... it's been a while since I've seen that problem though)
	__________________ ^{59 dislike this!}

15th March 2012, 01:56 AM	#250
realpaladin Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: I live not very often where my home is. Posts: 2,084	Originally Posted by IanS As I've tried emphasise throughout - any discussions about the nature of the image or about blood spots etc., are rendered irrelevant in light of the C14. That does not mean these discussions can not take place... There is no harm in digressing sometimes... it often serves other purposes than just the 'I am right and you are wrong.' Critical thinking is exactly that: 'critical thinking'. Not Pilpul or 'debate' with a 'winner' and a 'loser'. So don't be so uptight and learn that in discussions people will avoid anyone who keeps 'hammering' on the single 'winning' item. Also, lighten up a bit.
	__________________ --- "Change the rules, challenge the future!"

15th March 2012, 01:57 AM	#251
Alex Cured Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Terra Septentrionalis Incognita Posts: 251	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Hmm, not sure that would be for me. Tabs don't take up much horizontal space, given that writing is horizontal, but that looks like quite a large area of screen to take up with them vertical. I'm not overly fond of trees, either. And I can re-organise my tabs easily enough with Tab Mix Plus. That said, though, I'm sufficiently intrigued to give it a go. Never let it be said that I don't approach life with a sense of adventure. you need to get out more
	__________________ ^{59 dislike this!}

15th March 2012, 02:05 AM	#252
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,429	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Hmm, not sure that would be for me. Tabs don't take up much horizontal space, given that writing is horizontal, but that looks like quite a large area of screen to take up with them vertical. I'm not overly fond of trees, either. And I can re-organise my tabs easily enough with Tab Mix Plus. That said, though, I'm sufficiently intrigued to give it a go. Never let it be said that I don't approach life with a sense of adventure. Giving it a go, and I'm not entirely convinced. It doesn't sort things in to trees for me because I tend to open lots of tabs at once. So I'll have, say, the "Religion And Philosophy" forum open, and will scroll down the page looking for all topics that I'm interested in. As I go I'll click on each topic header and drag it upwards - my DragIt mouse gesture for "open in background tab". But opening it in a background tab means that it opens as a non-nested tab, and there's no option to change that. So the whole tree thing doesn't happen for me. The other issue is that of taking up space. It's got the option to auto-hide itself but, if it does that, then it seems not to expand while a tab is loading. So if I open, say, 15 tabs from the "Religion And Philosophy" forum then a few will probably still be loading when I've finished and want to start reading the first tab. So I either have to wait for it, or have it on "auto-shrink", which isn't ideal. I'll live with it for a week to see if I end up preferring it but, at the moment, I'm far from convinced. What a wonderfully on-topic post this was.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

15th March 2012, 02:06 AM	#253
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,429	Originally Posted by Alex Cured you need to get out more Going out's overrated. Besides which, I go out for a living. I'm not about to start doing it in my spare time, too.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

15th March 2012, 02:08 AM	#254
Alex Cured Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Terra Septentrionalis Incognita Posts: 251	Originally Posted by catsmate1 Untrue. As you have had pointed out to you more than once the shroud has been recreated using medieval techniques. Sadly, a little thing like evidence isn't going to change the "couldn't be faked" claim being repeated
	__________________ ^{59 dislike this!}

15th March 2012, 02:09 AM	#255
Alex Cured Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Terra Septentrionalis Incognita Posts: 251	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Going out's overrated. Besides which, I go out for a living. I'm not about to start doing it in my spare time, too. Something to do with your dislike of trees?
	__________________ ^{59 dislike this!}

15th March 2012, 02:17 AM	#256
Alex Cured Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Terra Septentrionalis Incognita Posts: 251	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Giving it a go, and I'm not entirely convinced. It doesn't sort things in to trees for me because I tend to open lots of tabs at once. So I'll have, say, the "Religion And Philosophy" forum open, and will scroll down the page looking for all topics that I'm interested in. As I go I'll click on each topic header and drag it upwards - my DragIt mouse gesture for "open in background tab". But opening it in a background tab means that it opens as a non-nested tab, and there's no option to change that. So the whole tree thing doesn't happen for me. The other issue is that of taking up space. It's got the option to auto-hide itself but, if it does that, then it seems not to expand while a tab is loading. So if I open, say, 15 tabs from the "Religion And Philosophy" forum then a few will probably still be loading when I've finished and want to start reading the first tab. So I either have to wait for it, or have it on "auto-shrink", which isn't ideal. I'll live with it for a week to see if I end up preferring it but, at the moment, I'm far from convinced. What a wonderfully on-topic post this was. Oh well, continuing the complete derail .... Drag-it sounds interesting and in the spirit of reciprocity I shall give it a go I use Session Manager with a different session for each major site I follow because I like to resume where I left things and this seems to work well with the tab tree, but anyway, too each his own ... Now back to this ridiculous fake shroud thing...
	__________________ ^{59 dislike this!}

15th March 2012, 02:24 AM	#257
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,429	Originally Posted by Alex Cured Oh well, continuing the complete derail .... Drag-it sounds interesting and in the spirit of reciprocity I shall give it a go Drag de Go was better as it allowed you to use gestures to execute scripts and was compatible with other add-ons like NextPlease, making it really flexible. But the developer stopped supporting it, and DragIt is the next best thing. The only problem with it is that once you've got used to using it you'll find working on any computer that doesn't have it really slow and frustrating.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

15th March 2012, 02:29 AM	#258
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,429	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Drag de Go was better as it allowed you to use gestures to execute scripts and was compatible with other add-ons like NextPlease, making it really flexible. But the developer stopped supporting it, and DragIt is the next best thing. The only problem with it is that once you've got used to using it you'll find working on any computer that doesn't have it really slow and frustrating. Actually, scratch that. I've not checked whether new add-ons have been added for a while and have just found Fire Gestures which looks like it'll do the same job as DragIt, plus all the scripting, etc. I'm going to try that instead.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

15th March 2012, 02:35 AM	#259
Roger Ramjets Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 762	Originally Posted by IanS Why does the C14 trump everything else? Because even if you could prove beyond all doubt that the image truly was that of a dead person, you would still be left with the fact that the C14 clearly shows that the cloth and it's image are only about 700 years old .... Wrong! If Christ really did resurrect in this shroud then its carbon 14 content may have been boosted to a higher level by the burst of supernatural radiation. Therefore the cloth would appear to be younger than it really is. Or perhaps God deliberately changed the carbon 14 dating results so people would still need faith to believe in Him. Or did the Devil do it to make people turn away from the church, so he will get their souls when they go to Hell? If you believe in miracles then you have already rejected scientific principles, anything is possible and God trumps everything...
Roger Ramjets Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 762	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

15th March 2012, 02:45 AM	#260
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,429	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Actually, scratch that. I've not checked whether new add-ons have been added for a while and have just found Fire Gestures which looks like it'll do the same job as DragIt, plus all the scripting, etc. I'm going to try that instead. ..and I've already abandoned it due to one or two really stupid design decisions. Right, derail over, for realsies this time.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

15th March 2012, 02:52 AM	#261
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,604	Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets Wrong! If Christ really did resurrect in this shroud then its carbon 14 content may have been boosted to a higher level by the burst of supernatural radiation. Therefore the cloth would appear to be younger than it really is. Or perhaps God deliberately changed the carbon 14 dating results so people would still need faith to believe in Him. Or did the Devil do it to make people turn away from the church, so he will get their souls when they go to Hell? If you believe in miracles then you have already rejected scientific principles, anything is possible and God trumps everything... That is all fair and true, and if somebody were to say, "I believe the shroud of Turin is genuine, and I don't care about science, because I know Jesus lived." - Then I'd say, "fine, I hope you're happy in your faith!" and that would be it. But that's not what these guys say. They say, "I can prove to you that Jesus lived, and one piece of evidence is the shroud of Turin, you have to accept that it is positive proof that Jesus existed". And THEN they are obliged to live up to scientific standards. Basically: They can belive what they will, but if they want to convince me there are requirements (and I, obviously, decide which). Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

15th March 2012, 02:55 AM	#262
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	the only miracle is that people still believe that nonsense stories.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

15th March 2012, 04:09 AM	#263
IanS Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by realpaladin That does not mean these discussions can not take place... There is no harm in digressing sometimes... it often serves other purposes than just the 'I am right and you are wrong.' Critical thinking is exactly that: 'critical thinking'. Not Pilpul or 'debate' with a 'winner' and a 'loser'. So don't be so uptight and learn that in discussions people will avoid anyone who keeps 'hammering' on the single 'winning' item. Also, lighten up a bit. Sure, there are different ways that any of us may prefer to proceed in any discussions like this, whether it‘s about the shroud or creationist ideas, or any other religious claim. What I'm trying to do is stop Jabba going off down multiple subjective avenues about such things as the nature of the image, blood spots, vanillin coating, the weaving pattern, and debating hundreds of different articles “published” by various religious shroud groups (often masquerading as independent scientists), and instead to focus Jabba’s attention on the fact that the only genuine evidence we have for an accurately determined date is that produced in 1988 by the C14. It may be fun to as you say “lighten up” and discuss all the hundreds of other claims made by religious groups about the authenticity of the shroud. That’s fine if you are not being serious about what the shroud actually is, and if you just want that “light” discussion. But it should be clearly realised that none of those discussions, however interesting anyone may personally find them, are of much if any use unless the C14 can be overturned (and so far, it can't). By all means lets “lighten up” and have a knockabout demolition of the shroud claims … but first, lets clearly recognise that we have an accurately determined date for the shroud … and as far as any of us can honestly tell it’s 14th century.
IanS Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,107

15th March 2012, 04:20 AM	#264
realpaladin Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: I live not very often where my home is. Posts: 2,084	Originally Posted by IanS What I'm trying to do is stop Jabba going off down multiple subjective avenues about such things as the nature of the image, blood spots, <snippety> that the only genuine evidence we have for an accurately determined date is that produced in 1988 by the C14. Won't work. There is not 1 single thread on this forum where a proponent of some theory or other will not digress. You can not force them into a direction you want. But besides driving your own point home, why would you want to? It is their show anyway, and you have to make allowance for that it is a person you are talking to and not a robot. Originally Posted by IanS It may be fun to as you say “lighten up” and discuss all the hundreds of other claims made by religious groups about the authenticity of the shroud. That’s fine if you are not being serious about what the shroud actually is, and if you just want that “light” discussion. Stop projecting/judging. Not everyone is the same as you. It does not follow that a 'light-heartedness' means that the matter is not taken seriously. You do not have an inkling on what the people on this forum are/know/do and you make assertions about everyone and everything. Do you have an authority problem? Originally Posted by IanS But it should be clearly realised that none of those discussions, however interesting anyone may personally find them, are of much if any use unless the C14 can be overturned (and so far, it can't). Be that as it may, it is not you who decide what value others place on which part of which discussion. Originally Posted by IanS By all means lets “lighten up” and have a knockabout demolition of the shroud claims … but first, lets clearly recognise that we have an accurately determined date for the shroud … and as far as any of us can honestly tell it’s 14th century. You are so blinded by your 'being right' that you have not seen the real item that is being discussed here. As stated earlier, by others... it is not a discussion on 'is the shroud fake', it is a discussion on 'is the shroud a miracle'. There is a subtle difference there and it is Jabba that chooses which arguments to try and use to convince the rest. If Jabba stops using the C14 then the C14 part is moot, no matter how right you are. Again, lighten up, and try to see nuances in communication, not the black and white of wrong and right.
	__________________ --- "Change the rules, challenge the future!" Last edited by realpaladin; 15th March 2012 at 04:22 AM. Reason: added: by others

15th March 2012, 04:30 AM	#265
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,320	Realpaladin It is NOT a discussion on whether the Shroud is a miracle! Jabba is not claiming it's a miracle, although I am trying to force him to come clean on what in fact he IS claiming. On the other hand, it IS a claim of wrong and right. If it once covered the body of Jesus, then it is not a product of fourteenth century artistry. Wrong or right. This is not a philosophical question with fuzzy ill-defined answers. It is entirely unambiguous and clear cut.
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,320

15th March 2012, 05:18 AM	#266
Alex Cured Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Terra Septentrionalis Incognita Posts: 251	Originally Posted by realpaladin That does not mean these discussions can not take place... There is no harm in digressing sometimes... it often serves other purposes than just the 'I am right and you are wrong.' Critical thinking is exactly that: 'critical thinking'. Not Pilpul or 'debate' with a 'winner' and a 'loser'. So don't be so uptight and learn that in discussions people will avoid anyone who keeps 'hammering' on the single 'winning' item. Also, lighten up a bit. It might be useful I suppose to, say a psychology student, trying to understand how wishful thinking distorts rationality, but I have some sympathy with the OP. I mean when the whistle blows and you've just won the game 10-nil (and the other team was lucky to get nil), it's frustrating to hear them arguing that they really won (or at any rate didn't lose) because of a dispute over the ball
	__________________ ^{59 dislike this!}

15th March 2012, 05:27 AM	#267
realpaladin Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: I live not very often where my home is. Posts: 2,084	Originally Posted by Craig B Realpaladin It is NOT a discussion on whether the Shroud is a miracle! Jabba is not claiming it's a miracle, although I am trying to force him to come clean on what in fact he IS claiming. On the other hand, it IS a claim of wrong and right. If it once covered the body of Jesus, then it is not a product of fourteenth century artistry. Wrong or right. This is not a philosophical question with fuzzy ill-defined answers. It is entirely unambiguous and clear cut. You can not force anyone to admit they are wrong on an Internet forum. The best you could achieve is that they simply ignore this thread and go start the same discussion elsewhere. On the other hand, some of the posters here can be swayed into accepting their initial premises were incorrect. After all, you know you are right, and Jabba knows he is right. And what have you achieved by just proving your point? The people that thought you were right all along still think that and the people that thought otherwise think you are a jerk who can't admit he is wrong. No world deciding battles are fought here on this forum. And besides, it is my opinion that educating people is rather more important than just pointing out you are right. You know, the E in JREF... So unless you can guide someone along it is nothing but a 'let's gang up on that poor crackpot and beat his reasoning into a pulp'. That, to me, is pretty useless.
	__________________ --- "Change the rules, challenge the future!"

15th March 2012, 05:30 AM	#268
realpaladin Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: I live not very often where my home is. Posts: 2,084	Originally Posted by Alex Cured It might be useful I suppose to, say a psychology student, trying to understand how wishful thinking distorts rationality, but I have some sympathy with the OP. I mean when the whistle blows and you've just won the game 10-nil (and the other team was lucky to get nil), it's frustrating to hear them arguing that they really won (or at any rate didn't lose) because of a dispute over the ball Well, to me, it is not about winning or losing... it is whether I can make the other party understand my point of view. Just citing a bunch of stuff and doing exact science is what I do for a living, but on a forum (a discussion place) I also keep an open mind (I have conceded being wrong more than once... it happens ) and try to have an eye for the human factor. Edit: that is why I sometimes choose the side of the person who is 'clearly' wrong... because nothing will change in the world if we all just dig trenches and start carpetbombing each other with 'truths'.
	__________________ --- "Change the rules, challenge the future!" Last edited by realpaladin; 15th March 2012 at 05:31 AM.

15th March 2012, 05:38 AM	#269
Alex Cured Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Terra Septentrionalis Incognita Posts: 251	Originally Posted by realpaladin Well, to me, it is not about winning or losing... it is whether I can make the other party understand my point of view. Just citing a bunch of stuff and doing exact science is what I do for a living, but on a forum (a discussion place) I also keep an open mind (I have conceded being wrong more than once... it happens ) and try to have an eye for the human factor. Edit: that is why I sometimes choose the side of the person who is 'clearly' wrong... because nothing will change in the world if we all just dig trenches and start carpetbombing each other with 'truths'. Sure. Actually I sympathise with what you're saying too I'm sure you're right that the person with the other point of view is very unlikely to be swayed and if it was say a private email conversation I wouldn't bother with the argument either (well probably), but "winning the argument" might well be significant for others who may be overhearing the conversation and still have open minds (if such things exist )
	__________________ ^{59 dislike this!}

15th March 2012, 05:39 AM	#270
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,087	Originally Posted by carlitos Part 2 of the slideshow works, but the navigation on that site is brutal. 100% paraedolia. I think so. I almost wish I had asked the mods earlier to separate the "Is the shroud authentic" discussion from the "Seeing things in the shroud" discussion. Doesn't much matter, now. The latter would only be a repetitive chanting of paraedolia, and this historicity discussion is more educational. I am curious to know if there is any value to the idea that the makers of the shroud may have intentionally included some minor imagery in the larger, overall picture.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

15th March 2012, 05:41 AM	#271
Alex Cured Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Terra Septentrionalis Incognita Posts: 251	Originally Posted by X I think so. I almost wish I had asked the mods earlier to separate the "Is the shroud authentic" discussion from the "Seeing things in the shroud" discussion. Doesn't much matter, now. The latter would only be a repetitive chanting of paraedolia, and this historicity discussion is more educational. I am curious to know if there is any value to the idea that the makers of the shroud may have intentionally included some minor imagery in the larger, overall picture. the paraedolia bit would mean that they wouldn't have needed to
	__________________ ^{59 dislike this!}

15th March 2012, 08:29 AM	#272
IanS Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets Wrong! If Christ really did resurrect in this shroud then its carbon 14 content may have been boosted to a higher level by the burst of supernatural radiation. Therefore the cloth would appear to be younger than it really is. What is "supernatural radiation"? If the claim is supposed to be that shroud believers can invent any idea they want, such as inventing "supernatural radiation", then firstly there is nothing to stop someone else inventing the precise opposite by saying for example that "supernatural radiation" is "natural non-radiation". And secondly, anyone seriously thinking they can invent their own "truths" in that sort of fashion is less in danger of ever making a meaningful claim about the shroud, and more in danger of exhibiting serious mental disorder. Fortunately, Jabba is by no means doing anything so silly as that when he says he believes the shroud is genuine.
IanS Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,107

15th March 2012, 08:34 AM	#273
Alex Cured Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Terra Septentrionalis Incognita Posts: 251	Originally Posted by IanS What is "supernatural radiation"? If the claim is supposed to be that shroud believers can invent any idea they want, such as inventing "supernatural radiation", then firstly there is nothing to stop someone else inventing the precise opposite by saying for example that "supernatural radiation" is "natural non-radiation". And secondly, anyone seriously thinking they can invent their own "truths" in that sort of fashion is less in danger of ever making a meaningful claim about the shroud, and more in danger of exhibiting serious mental disorder. Fortunately, Jabba is by no means doing anything so silly as that when he says he believes the shroud is genuine. A good point. 'Supernatural radiation' would clearly leave no residue (or it would be 'natural'), ergo the shroud is fake. Q.E.D.
	__________________ ^{59 dislike this!}

15th March 2012, 08:37 AM	#274
IanS Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by realpaladin Won't work. There is not 1 single thread on this forum where a proponent of some theory or other will not digress. You can not force them into a direction you want. But besides driving your own point home, why would you want to? It is their show anyway, and you have to make allowance for that it is a person you are talking to and not a robot. Stop projecting/judging. Not everyone is the same as you. It does not follow that a 'light-heartedness' means that the matter is not taken seriously. You do not have an inkling on what the people on this forum are/know/do and you make assertions about everyone and everything. Do you have an authority problem? Be that as it may, it is not you who decide what value others place on which part of which discussion. You are so blinded by your 'being right' that you have not seen the real item that is being discussed here. As stated earlier, by others... it is not a discussion on 'is the shroud fake', it is a discussion on 'is the shroud a miracle'. There is a subtle difference there and it is Jabba that chooses which arguments to try and use to convince the rest. If Jabba stops using the C14 then the C14 part is moot, no matter how right you are. Again, lighten up, and try to see nuances in communication, not the black and white of wrong and right. OK, so you are obviously very keen on your own opinions, and for some reason under the impression that you should be telling other people what line of discussion they can and can’t take. But I'm really not interested in your argument about it, thanks.
IanS Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,107

15th March 2012, 09:16 AM	#275
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,241	Originally Posted by Alex Cured It's definitely not bug free (The one I get occasionally is, if I have too many tabs open, and open a new tab it can be invisible in the list and the wrong tab is highlighted: Usually a restart fixes that ... it's been a while since I've seen that problem though) Yeah that happens to me sometimes too; if I click on the taskbar, select 'Customize' and then exit from the customisation window it works OK.