Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Kowani]

Jesus Tars. You're reading a lot into that.

I went with anti-vax because I was struggling to come up with another analogy. I actually considered flat-earth, but decided against it because (even though it's less harmful than anti-vax stuff) I thought it would sound like I was calling you stupid.

Unfortunately there just aren't many positions that people can take that are blatantly unreasonable, and also not stupid. If somebody can think of one that isn't also a religious mater of some kind, please let me know. Belief in the Bermuda Triangle stuff maybe?

And the problem is of course, that the position isn't "blatantly unreasonable." Attacks on the shroud are fairly frequent, with those against it dismissing and belittling the camp that support it. You didn't even attempt to engage in any sort of good faith dialectic on the subject, you just condescendingly dismissed it out of hand. And while, in some certain aspect like anti-vax, and AIG might not warrant good faith dialectic, this is not the case.


There's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to the controversy around the carbon dating of the shroud. STURP chemists have themselves discounted their own findings. Multiple lines of inquiry, on both sides of the issue have been implemented to analyze the icon and its authenticity, from imagery analysis, carbon dating, weaving techniques, recreation attempts, dna testing, etc. No single relic has been evaluated and debated to such a degree as has the Shroud of Turin.


And yet, every time the opposition camp ignores all that, and looks down their noses, dismissing the opposite side as unreasonable dullards. So excuse me, but I don't really think insinuations about where you head is, is off the mark.


Maybe approach a subject like this with some goddamn fucking respect, and it won't fly off the rails.

i mean
just going through the wikipedia page
even being generous...it's not convincing
you have threads that you can't actually prove came from the sample, one of which used an entirely untested process for the dating, a change of maybe 2 centuries, and a bunch of alternative hypotheses that are being disproved on the same page
it's not "literally nothing", but it might as well be

[Tarsonis]

And the problem is of course, that the position isn't "blatantly unreasonable." Attacks on the shroud are fairy frequent, with those against it dismissing and belittling the camp that support it. You didn't even attempt to engage in any sort of good faith dialectic on the subject, you just condescendingly dismissed it out of hand. And while, in some certain aspect like anti-vax, and AIG might not warrant good faith dialectic,


There's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to the controversy around the carbon dating of the shroud. STURP chemists have themselves discounted their own findings. Multiple lines of inquiry, on both sides of the issue have been implemented to analyze the icon and its authenticity, from imagery analysis, carbon dating, weaving techniques, recreation attempts, dna testing, etc. No single relic has been evaluated and debated to such a degree as has the Shroud of Turin.


And yet, everytime the opposition camp ignore all that, and look down their noses, dismissing the opposite side as unreasonable dullards. So excuse me, but I don't really think insinuations about where you head is, is off the mark.


Maybe approach a subject like this with some goddamn fucking respect, and it won't fly off the rails.

I don't think that there is any evidence that those who believe in the shroud's authenticity would except as proof of it's inauthenticity. I do believe such evidence has been provided, and therefore that people who continue to dispute the mater are being unreasonable.

Just like you wont accept any evidence that does support it. Guess you're right there with us being unreasonable then.

I cannot quote the entire wiki page surrounding the carbon dating analysis, but for anyone who feels like reading through it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarb ... d_of_Turin

There are pretty big error bars on the date. And lots of grumbling about whether this or that form of contamination might have pushed the date around. But nothing that even remotely comes close to the 1st century. In fact, it would be very difficult to justify moving the date back to even 1000 AD.

I agree that based on the current information we have, that it would be impossible to move the current dating to any degree. Entirely new testing would be have to be done.

It cannot be a 1st century artifact.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree.

Now I'm sorry you feel personally attacked by this. But I'm not personally attacking you. And I'm not being disrespectful.

You've personally attacked me, and put me on the same level as anti-vaxers. By god if you don't think that's disrespectful, then I'm not sure you even know what the word means.

[Neanderthaland]

Putting a pin in that (because that seems like opening a whole other can of worms), is there any other corroboration to the idea that he was 5'11"?

Yes, I imagine it would.

Not that I know of. Seems a bit tall even for the Middle Ages if we're going for the "Shroud was made in the Middle Ages" idea. But not impossible.

I don't know, I mean - obviously being an atheist - it's not my place to be offended on behalf of your religion most of the time.

But there's a part of me that feels as though confidently stating Christ's physical characteristics as though they were proven is... sacrilegious? Maybe that's not the right word? There probably is a proper word for this, but I can't think of it at the moment.

It seems like proper theology would be to respectfully reserve judgement. Secure in the knowledge that knowing Christ's shoe size isn't really the important thing.

[Tarsonis]

And the problem is of course, that the position isn't "blatantly unreasonable." Attacks on the shroud are fairly frequent, with those against it dismissing and belittling the camp that support it. You didn't even attempt to engage in any sort of good faith dialectic on the subject, you just condescendingly dismissed it out of hand. And while, in some certain aspect like anti-vax, and AIG might not warrant good faith dialectic, this is not the case.


There's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to the controversy around the carbon dating of the shroud. STURP chemists have themselves discounted their own findings. Multiple lines of inquiry, on both sides of the issue have been implemented to analyze the icon and its authenticity, from imagery analysis, carbon dating, weaving techniques, recreation attempts, dna testing, etc. No single relic has been evaluated and debated to such a degree as has the Shroud of Turin.


And yet, every time the opposition camp ignores all that, and looks down their noses, dismissing the opposite side as unreasonable dullards. So excuse me, but I don't really think insinuations about where you head is, is off the mark.


Maybe approach a subject like this with some goddamn fucking respect, and it won't fly off the rails.

i mean
just going through the wikipedia page
even being generous...it's not convincing
you have threads that you can't actually prove came from the sample, one of which used an entirely untested process for the dating, a change of maybe 2 centuries, and a bunch of alternative hypotheses that are being disproved on the same page
it's not "literally nothing", but it might as well be

I wouldn't expect you to be convinced. I don't expect anybody to be convinced simply by reading the page.

The point, is that I resent being called unreasonable and being smeared as a dullard, simply because I do find the totality of the evidence convincing that it is authentic.




I suppose I should just be glad nobody tried to bring up blood spatter analysis.

[Salus Maior]

Yes, I imagine it would.

Not that I know of. Seems a bit tall even for the Middle Ages if we're going for the "Shroud was made in the Middle Ages" idea. But not impossible.

I don't know, I mean - obviously being an atheist - it's not my place to be offended on behalf of your religion most of the time.

But there's a part of me that feels as though confidently stating Christ's physical characteristics as though they were proven is... sacrilegious? Maybe that's not the right word? There probably is a proper word for this, but I can't think of it at the moment.

It seems like proper theology would be to respectfully reserve judgement. Secure in the knowledge that knowing Christ's shoe size isn't really the important thing.

Well, it's not really important.

[Nakena]

I suppose I should just be glad nobody tried to bring up blood spatter analysis.

You mean this?

[Salus Maior]

I suppose I should just be glad nobody tried to bring up blood spatter analysis.

You mean this?

Can we not spur on this argument?

[Tarsonis]

I suppose I should just be glad nobody tried to bring up blood spatter analysis.

You mean this?

Yes the completely discontented pseudoscientific bullshit practice, that only became mainstream so the Texas court system could more easily frame people.


https://features.propublica.org/blood-s ... nd-courts/

[Nakena]

You mean this?

Can we not spur on this argument?

I am surprised it went beyond the initial exchange between Arch and Tars, and continued across so many pages.

[Tarsonis]

Can we not spur on this argument?

I am surprised it went beyond the initial exchange between Arch and Tars, and continued across so many pages.

Didn't stop you from inserting yourself though did it.

[Neanderthaland]

I don't think that there is any evidence that those who believe in the shroud's authenticity would except as proof of it's inauthenticity. I do believe such evidence has been provided, and therefore that people who continue to dispute the mater are being unreasonable.

Just like you wont accept any evidence that does support it. Guess you're right there with us being unreasonable then.

Let's pretend for a second that the radio carbon dating came back to 1st century.

You're right that I wouldn't axiomatically accept that this was the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. Because, presumably he wasn't the only person who died in the 1st Century and was buried with a shroud. But at that point I would at least concede that it is possible. Currently there is no reason to believe even that.

I cannot quote the entire wiki page surrounding the carbon dating analysis, but for anyone who feels like reading through it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarb ... d_of_Turin

There are pretty big error bars on the date. And lots of grumbling about whether this or that form of contamination might have pushed the date around. But nothing that even remotely comes close to the 1st century. In fact, it would be very difficult to justify moving the date back to even 1000 AD.

I agree that based on the current information we have, that it would be impossible to move the current dating to any degree. Entirely new testing would be have to be done.

It is highly unlikely that three respected carbon dating labs all independently got the result wrong by over a thousand years. And moreover, that each of the three got very close to the same wrong answer. Of 6-8 hundred years old.

If you want more tests, that's fine, but I think it's unreasonable to expect a vastly different answer.

It cannot be a 1st century artifact.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree.

And I think that position is unreasonable. And I've said why.

Now I'm sorry you feel personally attacked by this. But I'm not personally attacking you. And I'm not being disrespectful.

You've personally attacked me, and put me on the same level as anti-vaxers. By god if you don't think that's disrespectful, then I'm not sure you even know what the word means.

You know what, I apologize for that. I meant the analogy only in terms of their tendency to insist that a controversy exists where one does not. Which is very similar to what you're doing. I did not mean to imply you are morally equivalent to an anti-vaxer. Perhaps one of those cryptozoologists would have been a more apt comparison, but it didn't occur to me until just now.

[Luminesa]

You could say the same thing about any group within the Catholic Church or any other Church for that matter. That a faction or group is a sizeable portion within the Church does not make their position dogmatic, free from criticism, or even orthodox. Moreover, being a devotee of the shroud does not necessitate believing it to be the literal burial shroud, as I said.

And if that's the way you're using it. Fine.

The only reason this got started was because someone claimed to know the physical characteristics of Jesus, because of the shroud. Which I don't think is justified.

If I can...scoot in here, since I seemed to have been a part of this argument that started, the Shroud is not the only piece of evidence that has been used to determine Jesus's physical aspects. Eucharistic miracles such as that at Lanciano have also verified Jesus's physical statistics. However, I did not intend for this to become an us vs. them argument.

Now let's...take a bit to chill, huh?

[Nakena]

I am surprised it went beyond the initial exchange between Arch and Tars, and continued across so many pages.

Didn't stop you from inserting yourself though did it.

Of course not!

If so much content is being provided, I am going to have my cut from it. And so far it is not disappointing.

[Neanderthaland]

And if that's the way you're using it. Fine.

The only reason this got started was because someone claimed to know the physical characteristics of Jesus, because of the shroud. Which I don't think is justified.

If I can...scoot in here, since I seemed to have been a part of this argument that started, the Shroud is not the only piece of evidence that has been used to determine Jesus's physical aspects. Eucharistic miracles such as that at Lanciano have also verified Jesus's physical statistics. However, I did not intend for this to become an us vs. them argument.

Yeah, I'm surprised by how it blew up as well. And maybe now would be a good time to back out.

Have a good day, y'all.

[Luminesa]

Didn't stop you from inserting yourself though did it.

Of course not!

If so much content is being provided, I am going to have my cut from it. And so far it is not disappointing but getting ever more promising.

How about not posting about being an opportunistic vulture wanting to continue a fight for your own personal benefit? Argument's done.

[Nakena]

Of course not!

If so much content is being provided, I am going to have my cut from it. And so far it is not disappointing but getting ever more promising.

How about not posting about being an opportunistic vulture wanting to continue a fight for your own personal benefit? Argument's done.

I havent even participated in the fight so far.

[Tarsonis]

Just like you wont accept any evidence that does support it. Guess you're right there with us being unreasonable then.

Let's pretend for a second that the radio carbon dating came back to 1st century.

You're right that I wouldn't axiomatically accept that this was the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. Because, presumably he wasn't the only person who died in the 1st Century and was buried with a shroud. But at that point I would at least concede that it is possible. Currently there is no reason to believe even that. .

For you to believe that. Now of course, even if it was dated to 30 AD, up to the very day Christ was buried, it would not prove that it was indeed shroud of Christ. But, I wasn't lying when I said the Shroud is the single most analyzed relic in history. There's extensive evidence beyond the scientific analysis. It's not unreasonable for someone, when analyzing the totality of the evidence, to come to a different conclusion than you on the subject.

It is highly unlikely that three respected carbon dating labs all independently got the result wrong by over a thousand years. And moreover, that each of the three got very close to the same wrong answer. Of 6-8 hundred years old.

If you want more tests, that's fine, but I think it's unreasonable to expect a vastly different answer.

Nobody doubts the technique of the labs. Using the same samples, I would expect no different than three similar datings. The issue has been whether or not the samples used were properly suited to be dated in the first place.

You know what, I apologize for that. I meant the analogy only in terms of their tendency to insist that a controversy exists where one does not. Which is very similar to what you're doing. I did not mean to imply you are morally equivalent to an anti-vaxer.

Thank you. And I apologize as well for losing my temper and making comments about the proximity of your head to your ass.

Perhaps one of those cryptozoologists would have been a more apt comparison, but it didn't occur to me until just now.

*Long inhale* So now you got something against "Bigfoot?"

[Tarsonis]

How about not posting about being an opportunistic vulture wanting to continue a fight for your own personal benefit? Argument's done.

I havent even participated in the fight so far.

You did, I just chose to ignore it.

[Nakena]

I havent even participated in the fight so far.

You did, I just chose to ignore it.

Nah.

I merely asked a simple question, which you answered.

Thus I neither participated in the fight and neither did you choose to ignore me.

[Luminesa]

How about not posting about being an opportunistic vulture wanting to continue a fight for your own personal benefit? Argument's done.

I havent even participated in the fight so far.

And it's done. So don't try to jump in. It doesn't look good if you jump into a mosh pit and nobody catches you.

[Tarsonis]

You did, I just chose to ignore it.

Nah.

I merely asked a simple question, which you answered.

Thus I neither participated in the fight and neither did you choose to ignore me.

That wasn't the comment I was referring to.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I suppose I should just be glad nobody tried to bring up blood spatter analysis.

You mean this?

Jesus christ.

[Tarsonis]

You mean this?

Jesus christ.

Bless you.

[Punished UMN]

Look, at least we can all agree that bloodspatter analysis (and tbh probably a great deal of things admissible to court under the misnomer of "forensic science") is pseudoscience that exists only to expand the powers of police.

[Kowani]

Look, at least we can all agree that bloodspatter analysis (and tbh probably a great deal of things admissible to court under the misnomer of "forensic science") is pseudoscience that exists only to expand the powers of police.

i will back you on the blood spatter
still unsure about the rest of forensics, though-