I think I might've seen that same documentary. In the documentaray that I saw someone recreated the shroud using method similar to photograpy with materials and methods available to people in Medieval Europe.
Why is this a liberal or conservative issue? There are plenty of liberals who are very religious, Jimmy Carter, and plenty of Conservatives who are anti-religious.
My initial position was and still is that this does not prove anything. The fact that the article said that was what bothered me, and then I saw it was funded by a radical group. Nothing to get riled up about unless you are part of that group, IMO.
It shouldn't be. The reason I said it is it is inevitably the same bunch every freaking time I and a few other posters state something will get overjoyed with the name-calling. They bring absolutely nothing to the table. I guess my opinion about the atheist league who funded the research got someone's panties in a bunch (SF) and he decided to start the typical name-calling. It's really all they do now these days. I guess the lack of the T_J and BigTexxx posts have made it to where they will criticize everything I and a few others have to say, facts or not.
I agree with you, except that I would say - if the results are sound - it does prove that the SoT is able to be reproduced and, further, done with medieval technology. That is an important distinction because of the whole history of the pilgrimage economy and the constant one-upmanship amongst churches with regards to reliquaries, locations, and the like. Even if the carbon dating was botched, it makes the most historical sense for this to have come out of that time. But as I said before, being able to reproduce something doesn't discredit the original artifact. So I do agree with you there. With regards to the group I, again, know nothing about it but if the results of the scientific work are sound then it could be an interesting development. This guy will present his paper and publish something that will be able to be reviewed by the community. Until then, all I can say is it would be interesting but you are right - this is nothing spectacular. I was way more excited about the 30,000 year old woven (and some pink!) fibers. That suggests so much more about human history and humanity in general. I guess I was thrown off by your original attack of the OP and then writing that the research shouldn't have been funded.
I will point out Fatty you were the one throwing out the label "liberal". I think you are an OK guy and don't deserve SF and others jumping down your throat all the time but when you come out firing from the hip and throwing around stuff like "liberal conspirators" you're going to get a lot of flack.
Every time we can debunk some bulls**t, we take a step toward a more civilized planet. Onward soldiers of science!
Lol. When you are an atheist group that funds who knows how much money to scientists to see if they can duplicate something? And then when they do, that is somehow "proof" that the original is a fake? Yeah, I'd say it's a radical group. You don't?
Well, I've got your back on this one Fatty. They may be chiseling away at our beloved religious icon the shroud, but let's see the godless heretics disprove this:
I have to say, as an athiest, I do find it very strange that other atheists will form a group on the basis of their atheism to further the cause of their atheism. When I'm thinking about God, and the lack thereof, I am feeling my most nihilistic; at those times, I would feel no incentive at all to cooperate with anyone, since it is all just a meaningless flash in the pan anyway. If they did it in the name of humanism, that'd be a different story, but atheism - I don't see the point. It's weird. If there's no God, there's no point in being right and no benefit in showing others the truth. I guess that's why I get along much better with the church crowd than with my fellow atheists.
As an atheist, I have to say I completely disagree with you. Yes, atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. The problem is a belief in god is a very, very big deal to many people as well as something that shapes many of their other beliefs. That makes my disbelief a very, very big deal (in a negative way) to those same people. Whenever I can, I prefer to associate with other atheists instead of theists. I can be myself without having people become angry at me for not sharing in their faith. With many theists, it isn't enough that you keep quiet about your disbelief or respectfully disagree with their faith. Just knowing you are there not believing what they believe is an issue for them. I'm a little surprised you have not noticed or experienced this. Do you live in Houston? Do you tell anyone about your atheism? Does it not bother you that many of these theists seek to discredit you (and science) because they feel threatened by anything that does not align with their faith? It's hard for me to understand how willingly associate with people who, in my experience, are disgusted and threatened by your pursuit of logical, fact-based answers. I guess that is why I ask if you are from Houston. I know not all communities are as religiously aggressive as Houston and the south in general.
"For real"? lol. Yes. And my wife is born again. I keep two hats -- my atheist hat, and my academic observer of theology hat. I'm usually wearing the latter hat, especially on the bbs. Most people, here and in the wide world (like at church), probably think I'm christian.
