A CHALLENGE TO THE ATHEIST Options

[illriginal]

Your rebuttal amounts to an obvious and embarrassing ad hominem attack. And, we're supposed to take you seriously? Actually address the points presented or don't refer to them at all; this is supposed to be a debate. You're expected to recognize arguments and actually address them.

Your side of your debates make me laugh, in all honesty. Because the problem is your existence on the debate forum is very trite. I get bored. But any how...

What atheist would hate most is the idea that Jesus truly existed, IF that's true, then it would be more than probable that God does in fact exist. But other than the Shroud Of Turin, the one thing I would love for us to discover is Noah's Ark. Which I would have to say that more than likely it's in a glacier or just frozen deep underneath.

But, do you know anything about the Shroud Of Turin? If not, do some research, and please... don't just look at one source. :D

If that's not good enough, go pick up the book called, "The Urantia" It scientifically proves that Jesus existed and God does exist. But make sure to get the companion book with it, quite a bit of it is in ancient English.

Don't be scared, you might just convert :D
When you do, let us know. I'll be happy to congratulate you :)

[*Flair*]

The problem we have here is simple. Lil youngsters who are atheist who think they're always right and no one can prove them wrong. They use science as their backbone and their guide.

The problem we have here is simple. Lil youngsters who are believers who think they're always right and no one can prove them wrong. The use ancient books as their backbone and their guide.

We can do it too.

[illriginal]

The problem we have here is simple. Lil youngsters who are believers who think they're always right and no one can prove them wrong. The use ancient books as their backbone and their guide.

We can do it too.

Well I'm not categorized in there. And yes this is true, there's people who only know a little and act like they know everything.

But the same science you use, I use as well and can find answers to the past and present. It just takes ambition and patience.

[pinacoolada]

also the Holy Bible. it was perserved by monks who copyed it down work for work by hand every letter and would burn it if it was incorrect by one letter. when all the books were analysed nowhere did any of them conflict each other. how could a series of book written over 1000s of miles and 1000s of year not conflict each other? only if they where written by the same person: The Holy Spirit! in Christ

Err. I'm Christian too. But actually, you're wrong. The bible has undergone a series of changes. The old testament is borrowed from the jews. The New Testament (if I'm not mistaken) was first passed down orally since the people who believed in Jesus were illiterate. And people who wrote the bible were concentrated in pretty much the same area.

Personally, I don't take the bible literally. My beliefs are based upon personal experiences. Experiences where I felt that there was someone there for me, and there is a God. And I don't think God is as strict as religion makes him.

When it comes to Science vs. God, I think that Science actually proves God's extistance. Sure the scientists of the Renaissance unlocked the secrets of the Universe. How it worked, what revolved around what. They may say it contradicted the bible, and therefore, it was false. I don't think so. That's why I don't take the bible literally. What if the scientists simply unlocked the Universe's blueprint? Since God made man so intellegent?

The early Roman Catholic church believed that the Earth did not move. Of course, Galileo, through observation, proved that it does in fact move, and *gasp* it revolves around the SUN!

Psalms 103: "You fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever."

^ Well people took that literally. Remember. People made up religion. People who knew nothing about the universe. Well what do you expect? Of course they'll say things like that. Besides, this was passed on orally. I'm sure most of you are aware of what can happen when things are passed on from person to person. The meaning might even alter. Did I say that Galileo was a devout Catholic? Because he was. His daughter was a nun too.

I don't need the bible to believe in God. For me, it's a guide. Not to be taken literally.

[1angel3]

There is nothing more dangerous than a little knowledge and the certainty that you are right.

1angel3, you and your "father" have displayed a very incomplete understanding of science, and use your ignorance as an example of science's ignorance. Now, I feel no obligation to inform you, as I sincerely doubt you would listen to my explanation, much less accept it. Also, it would take me a while to type up (since I must provide all elementary level background), and I am, quite frankly, lazy.

How would you know if I would not except it? If you offer I listen. Plus I was not looking at the science of magnets, we all know how they work, of course, I was just trying to explain how I think god show his existents, I just use science a little to explain it, I did not think I needed to explain it in detail, I presumed you knew or I would of took three hours to type it. I tried my best to explain my point of view and me get called an idiot. I didn't disrespect you and call you stupid and an idiot and I didn't bother you. You may feel I lack knowledge in science but that don't give you a right to call me an idiot and stupid and everyone else on this thread. Getting back to the magnets, can I say I was looking at it in a religious way? Maybe, I understand the science of magnets, I think the invisible force the magnets make are the forces of God and I'm not a idiot for it. My Father was just being a parent and your care taker would of did the same for you. He didn't mean to call you an idiot, he called you a idiot because you called me one.

For the atheist, I tried to give my point of view on god existents but the only reply I get is "your an idiot". I think its up to you to decide rather you believe or not and right now I don't care anymore. Good luck to you all.

This post has been edited by 1angel3: Jun 29 2007, 04:01 PM

[*Flair*]

^ Don't get emotional. You (Believers) have called us idiots thousands of times. It is idiotic trying to prove a point without any substantial evidence.

Yes, I am aware that Unbelievers do that too, but Believers take the crown ... always trying to be right.

We (Unbelievers) aren't trying to convince / 'convert' you. I am sick of people condemning me to pre-hell just because I'm Agnostic.

1angel3, you've tried to make your point but it still boils down to one thing ... where's your proof? Don't give me the 'you have to have faith' crap. Give me something real and I assure you that I'll convert.
Even then, which religion should I follow? Is it Allah, Jesus, Buddah (however that is spelt)? I have so many questions, maybe inappropriate for this thread, I need some answers.

Believing in something you can't contact physically is ludacris.

[1angel3]

^^ Well nobody really have proof if God exist or not. I really don't care anymore rather you believe or not.

[pirikins]

I'm for both sides of creation and evolution. Sure, we've evolved from these organisms and they've evolved from those organisms and so on. But the neverending questions will be, where did we all come from? The big bang theory, the universe, how would it have been there if it wasn't all set up some how. But then again, we weren't there millions of years ago when all of this happened.

Well sure thats what the physicists say, that order comes out of chaos is divine.... But that is a VERY far cry from "evolution isn't logical" which is what you said in your earlier post. Evolution is not only logical, it is observable, falsifiable, and testable. Evolutionary microbiologists are currently picking apart junk DNA of species to conduct forensic analysis of what they used to be. Human DNA, for instance, contains the code for a tail that we never use. We have 85% of our DNA in common with mice, we split off from them 50 million years ago.

Physicists are the closest to the divine when it comes to figuring out the secrets of the universe and they use appropriately reverential language, but for the most part they laugh at the idea of a personal human-like deity that most people think of when they think of god.

Your idea that the universe was "set-up" would be the divine watchmaker theory of the deists. I'm not sure how many physicists are deists but I can tell you few evolutionary biologists are.

[pirikins]

Your side of your debates make me laugh, in all honesty. Because the problem is your existence on the debate forum is very trite. I get bored. But any how...

What atheist would hate most is the idea that Jesus truly existed, IF that's true, then it would be more than probable that God does in fact exist. But other than the Shroud Of Turin, the one thing I would love for us to discover is Noah's Ark. Which I would have to say that more than likely it's in a glacier or just frozen deep underneath.

But, do you know anything about the Shroud Of Turin? If not, do some research, and please... don't just look at one source. :D

If that's not good enough, go pick up the book called, "The Urantia" It scientifically proves that Jesus existed and God does exist. But make sure to get the companion book with it, quite a bit of it is in ancient English.

Don't be scared, you might just convert :D
When you do, let us know. I'll be happy to congratulate you :)

The Urantia was written between 1923 and 1955 by an anonymous author somewhere in Illinois. I understand that dialects change over the years but calling that "ancient english" is a bit of a joke, no?

[illriginal]

^ Don't get emotional. You (Believers) have called us idiots thousands of times. It is idiotic trying to prove a point without any substantial evidence.

Yes, I am aware that Unbelievers do that too, but Believers take the crown ... always trying to be right.

We (Unbelievers) aren't trying to convince / 'convert' you. I am sick of people condemning me to pre-hell just because I'm Agnostic.

Well... simply put, if you're agnostic... you have nothing to worry about. Because you don't need religion, just faith in God. Follow God's laws and you'll be ok.

As to tryin to prove each other wrong... both atheist and religious folk believe by faith.. not proof. I mean if you want to get technical that is.

I believe in evolution, because even the mind of a human evolves. The physical traits of a human evolves from age 1 to age 100. But I also believe in creation, because for example there's no way DNA evolved into a physical being without it being created first.

For many years we kept being told that we evolved from monkeys, but now they're tellin us that study shows we might have lived during the dino era. Now they're tellin us they've found human bones that belong to beings of 10-16 feet tall.

If in fact humans did exist during the dino era, that means the story of Kane and Able is true, that there was "beasts" out there that would kill him or even "giants" such as the story of David and Goliath... maybe there was many giants during that time.

Who knows? No one on planet earth, that's obvious. That's the point of science, to figure it out. Most of those historical events would be found below our feet. Inside and deep beneath the frozen ice, and many miles deep into the ocean.


But like I've mentioned before, you want scientific proof of creation? Get yourselves, "The Urantia"

[illriginal]

The Urantia was written between 1923 and 1955 by an anonymous author somewhere in Illinois. I understand that dialects change over the years but calling that "ancient english" is a bit of a joke, no?

Uh... there is no author. It was discovered. You haven't read the book and you wouldn't know what ancient english looks like, "dialects" lol that's laughable.

Instead of trying to figure out where the book came from or who wrote it or by gettin some summary of the book, why don't you go buy the book and read it, and make sure to get the companion to it because you won't understand a lot of the "ancient" words.

Like I said, it's backed by science that God in fact exists and that Jesus does in fact exists.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_t...he_Urantia_Book

[*Flair*]

I don't care if it's proven scientifically or whichever way as long as it's proof.

Wait ... I don't need religion to go to heaven? That's new.

[pirikins]

Uh... there is no author. It was discovered. You haven't read the book and you wouldn't know what ancient english looks like, "dialects" lol that's laughable.

Instead of trying to figure out where the book came from or who wrote it or by gettin some summary of the book, why don't you go buy the book and read it, and make sure to get the companion to it because you won't understand a lot of the "english" words.

Like I said, it's backed by science that God in fact exists and that Jesus does in fact exists.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_t...he_Urantia_Book

Yeah I looked at that, that isn't ancient english either. I've read olde english in Chaucer and Shakespeare, and that looks absolutely nothing like any of the older forms of english that I've ever seen. You need to go back to school so you can learn to identify frauds and forgeries better. English isn't your first language is it.

[illriginal]

Yeah I looked at that, that isn't ancient english either. I've read olde english in Chaucer and Shakespeare, and that looks absolutely nothing like any of the older forms of english that I've ever seen. You need to go back to school so you can learn to identify frauds and forgeries better. English isn't your first language is it.

Back to school?! ROFLMAO Lil girl... do you know what an Optical Physicist is?
LOL @ Chaucer and Shakespeare.... that's no damn ancient english.
You can't even fathom what Ancient English is.. the universal language...

Here get a clue: http://www.revisedhistory.org/Investigation-eng-history.htm
Oxford: http://www.askoxford.com/oec/mainpage/oec02/?view=uk
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen:_Ancient_English_Edition

You're tellin me to go back to school? I surpass America's bastardized educational system.

[illriginal]

I don't care if it's proven scientifically or whichever way as long as it's proof.

Wait ... I don't need religion to go to heaven? That's new.

No you don't need a religion, religion is a guide, a way of life, a type of teaching of God.

Religion itself is man made, why? Because they needed to identify their belief system. Jews were not a religion, but ethnicity. A way of life, a culture of its own.


You don't even have to go to Church, as long as you have faith in God you're ok. Of course you can't just have faith in God and kill people, because God will lose faith in you.

[sadolakced acid]

It is interesting to note that the two items of proof you provide are still considered hoaxes by a significant portion of the scientific community.

[xKatt]

Uh... there is no author. It was discovered. You haven't read the book and you wouldn't know what ancient english looks like, "dialects" lol that's laughable.

Instead of trying to figure out where the book came from or who wrote it or by gettin some summary of the book, why don't you go buy the book and read it, and make sure to get the companion to it because you won't understand a lot of the "english" words.

Like I said, it's backed by science that God in fact exists and that Jesus does in fact exists.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_t...he_Urantia_Book

Please stop acting like you're more intelligent than everyone on this forum. Saying something is "laughable" or adding "lol"'s to your posts (about other peoples' ideas) is condescending and makes you look worse than anyone.

The Urantia Book

originated in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. sometime between 1924 and 1955, but its authorship is considered to be a mystery.

Ancient English? If you consider the English used between 1924 and 1955 as Ancient English, you obviously haven't been through a 7th grade literature class. It's called a dialect if anything.

And beyond that, it was written over half a century ago. The sciences presented int his book have been proven wrong on several occasions. Sure it may have amazed scientists of that time, but scientists now would be highly unimpressed.

--

On the topic of Jesus:
It is undeniable that Jesus existed. We have physical proof that Jesus existed. Whoever denies that a Jesus Christ or Nazareth existed is ignorant. However, there is no proof that he was divine and there was no proof that he was the son of a supernatural being; God.

^ Don't get emotional. You (Believers) have called us idiots thousands of times. It is idiotic trying to prove a point without any substantial evidence.

Yes, I am aware that Unbelievers do that too, but Believers take the crown ... always trying to be right.

We (Unbelievers) aren't trying to convince / 'convert' you. I am sick of people condemning me to pre-hell just because I'm Agnostic.

I completely agree! It's really starting to bother me how people are taking this debate to heart. We aren't trying to make you lose your faith! The point of a debate is to make the other side think; think about why you believe what you do and why other people believe what they do.

Anyway, to those who think Atheists are bullies; I've been called a demon and an abomination. I've been told repeatedly that I was going to hell and that I was a sinner who was unworthy under God's eyes. Someone's mom even called me the source of evil in my school because I didn't believe in God.

It's tough being a minority, so don't play the victim here. Us nonbelievers are the real victims, and we still don't play it.

[Simba]

It is interesting to note that the two items of proof you provide are still considered hoaxes by a significant portion of the scientific community.

A significant portion of the scientific community consider the whole idea of "God" as a hoax, so what can ya say?

[illriginal]

It is interesting to note that the two items of proof you provide are still considered hoaxes by a significant portion of the scientific community.

Considered hoaxes? You mean the shroud of turin? I hope you do, cuz if in fact you do... the "hoax ideology" has been debunked and proven. Carbon Dating... I love it.

If not that, can you please explain yourself.

[pirikins]

Back to school?! ROFLMAO Lil girl... do you know what an Optical Physicist is?
LOL @ Chaucer and Shakespeare.... that's no damn ancient english.
You can't even fathom what Ancient English is.. the universal language...

Here get a clue: http://www.revisedhistory.org/Investigation-eng-history.htm
Oxford: http://www.askoxford.com/oec/mainpage/oec02/?view=uk
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen:_Ancient_English_Edition

You're tellin me to go back to school? I surpass America's bastardized educational system.

This is absurd, an optical physicist is a physicist that studies the nature of light. Somehow I truly doubt you are an optical physicist, but I think its cute that you think you are one. Who knows, maybe in your country thats all they demand of their students which would explain why so many of them come to study here.

http://www.askoxford.com/oec/mainpage/oec02/?view=uk <---- is a link to the OED, which says nothing about "ancient english" or even all that much about olde english and norse, it talks about english.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen:_Ancient_English_Edition <---- is a link to a wikipedia entry on a science fiction book based on the premise that it was translated from "ancient english" that takes place in the "distant future".

Neither of those prove (or even mean) anything in regards to your assertions.

http://www.revisedhistory.org/Investigation-eng-history.htm <---- this link is the most comical, a link to the theory that ancient literature has gotten its chronology wrong and therefore all history needs to be revised. This should be reviewed by serious scientists and experts if valid, sure, but what on earth does that have to do with a science fiction book's concept of "ancient english" and a book about jesus written in Chicago in the early 20th century? Nothing! Nothing at all!

ooooooo its like I'm back in my undergraduate rhetoric class playing spot the fallacy, I say thats a RED HERRING!

Way to not make any point whatsoever. See this is why I don't believe you are a scientist, scientists get trained in making logical arguments by deduction or induction, you use neither. You use ad hominem attacks and lots of macho posturing and non sequitors to try to bully us into submission but only make yourself look stupid. Again, no scientist I've ever worked with (from America or otherwise) would do that.

Congratulations you busted yourself. You're a little too young for that Ph.D. don't you think?

PS: You're the same age as my baby sister, little boy.

[NoSex]

Considered hoaxes? You mean the shroud of turin?

The Shroud is, in the most intuitive sense, an obvious fake. Simply by looking at the picture on the cloth itself, you couldn't imagine it as an actual image created due to burial cover. The picture is far too two-dimensional and lacks any of the expected distortion which would occur when wrapped around a human figure. Even further, if the cloth wasn't wrapped around the figure, the image wouldn't have been imprinted in such a holistic manner - pieces would be missing (and we're not just talking the embarrassing absence of genitals).

But, beyond just the perceptual oddities, the science and history disagrees with the Jesus hypothesis anyways:

"However, apart from the fire damage, the cloth is remarkably well preserved for a reputed age of nearly 2000 years. Also, no examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave (Nickell 1998, 35; Wilson 1998, 98–99, 188; Sox 1981). In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized—and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus—multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face.

Other evidence of medieval fakery includes the shroud’s lack of historical record prior to the mid-fourteenth century—when a bishop reported the artist’s confession—as well as serious anatomical problems, the lack of wraparound distortions, the resemblance of the figure to medieval depictions of Jesus, and suspiciously bright red and picturelike “blood� stains which failed a battery of sophisticated tests by forensic serologists, among many other indicators. These facts argue against Rogers’ assertions that the shroud is neither a forgery nor a miracle—that “the blood is real blood� [3] and the image was produced by “a rotting body� (Rogers 2004).

Science has proved the Shroud of Turin a medieval fake, but defenders of authenticity turn the scientific method on its head by starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence—picking and choosing and reinterpreting as necessary. It is an approach I call “shroud science.� " [1]

The shroud, even if proven to be authentic, could not be shown to be the burial cloth of the Jesus depicted in the Biblical scriptures. Further, even if the cloth could be shown to belong to Jesus, it could never be demonstrated that, because of this, Jesus is God. There is nothing scientific, learned, or reasoning about declaring the Shroud of Turin as convincing spiritual evidence; it is a hoax.

[illriginal]

Please stop acting like you're more intelligent than everyone on this forum. Saying something is "laughable" or adding "lol"'s to your posts (about other peoples' ideas) is condescending and makes you look worse than anyone.

Ah but I am condescending and at most times arrogant, especially in debates, and you can hate me for it. Because the fact is... I don't know everything and no one here knows everything. But from what I've read in some of these threads when it comes to God and religion and science and man and creation and evolution and Darwin, and Jesus
etc... I get bored. Why? Because the topics get beat to death.

It's obvious I do know more for one reason, I know the argument you're gonna give me, why? Because it's the same argument that thousands of people have used to justify their debate, just with different wording most of the time.

Also I know plenty on the evolutionary/creationism thought/ideology/theory etc..., I don't know it all, but I know just as much if not maybe more than most of the people on this thread alone. I may know less than at least one person in this thread though, I just haven't came across them.

I also know plenty about Religion, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and a bit of Scientology as well... I don't know them scripture for scripture, but I generally understand their view/translations/way of life. I do know most scriptures from all the religious book

The Urantia Book

Ancient English? If you consider the English used between 1924 and 1955 as Ancient English, you obviously haven't been through a 7th grade literature class. It's called a dialect if anything.

Yes Ancient English. Do you know what Ancient English is? Can you even point out an Ancient English word? I highly DOUBT it. And again speaking of 1924-1955, lets get something straight, the book wasn't authored by anyone. The Urantia Foundation began in 1923. The book was DISCOVERED waaaaaay before that. The book though was published as in was made into thousands of copies by 1955... Not one word was edited from THAT book.

And beyond that, it was written over half a century ago. The sciences presented int his book have been proven wrong on several occasions. Sure it may have amazed scientists of that time, but scientists now would be highly unimpressed.

--
And beyond NONSENSE No one knows when the book was written, because it wasn't authored. The book was discovered in its entirety.

LOL This is what on Wikipedia claims critical:
Critical views

The Urantia Book has received limited published or formal critical analysis. Likely the most common points of contention include:

* It claims to be a revelation from celestial beings and is written as if directly presented by these celestial beings.
* From a scientific point of view, parts of the science it describes conflict with modern theories.
* Some of the concepts are alleged to have been plagiarized.
* To those who assert that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, it denies some Christian doctrines that are held to be true, and therefore is not acceptable.

First off, I hate to break it to you, but Aliens exist. Don't believe me? Take a good look at what NASA has to say, and try to find the video that NASA released for the world to see on NATIONAL TELEVISION A few years ago.

Then we'll get into the idea that it doesn't fit with "MODERN THEORIES"
For God sakes, God, Moses, Jesus, and every other religious figure that has ever existed DOESN'T FIT WITH MODERN THEORIES
The Big Bang theory doesn't even "fit" with modern theories because the String Theory is more probable and destroys the ideology of the Bing Bang Theory.


Then we have the claim that it might have been plagiarized, or at least parts of it was. Why? Because it makes complete sense? Because it agrees with both RELIGION & SCIENCE?!?! Please what a stupid attack, it doesn't even hold water.

Then we have the Bible thumpers who believe the Bible is 100% accurate. Ok lets take a little history lesson, do you know anything about Constantine at the court in Nicomedia? The same court in which they took the Holy Bible and basically decided what parts stayed and what parts had to be thrown out/modified for the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

They modified the New Testament to fit their political views, to conform their peasants/peons into their way of life, the Roman culture. The Bible was used not as a fair guide into which you learn of God. But it was used as a fear tactic. To scare their people into believing that the Romans were God sent. What do you think the Pope exists for? LOL He's nothing but a scare tactic, someone with political power who's nothing but a religious man and uses his religion to make political choices, even incorrect ones.

So the New Testament and the modern followers holds maybe a drop of water to the truth of Jesus' existence. So all in all, you failed viciously to at least make me break a sweat. I didn't even have to use any of my bookmarks nor any of my books to go back and reassure myself.

On the topic of Jesus:
It is undeniable that Jesus existed. We have physical proof that Jesus existed. Whoever denies that a Jesus Christ or Nazareth existed is ignorant. However, there is no proof that he was divine and there was no proof that he was the son of a supernatural being; God.
I completely agree! It's really starting to bother me how people are taking this debate to heart. We aren't trying to make you lose your faith! The point of a debate is to make the other side think; think about why you believe what you do and why other people believe what they do.

There's no proof that Jesus was divine? Then explain the Shroud of Turin... because from the Science point of view, the only way it is possible to see what is on the Shroud, is if Jesus BURST into an energy form and left an energetic imprint on the shroud. You can't even see a human figure that died and laid dead in a sheet or even see the figure of a mummy that was wrapped up onto whatever material cloth. Because it's impossible to leave an imprint other than blood or DNA... and that's if DNA even exists for that long.

Anyway, to those who think Atheists are bullies; I've been called a demon and an abomination. I've been told repeatedly that I was going to hell and that I was a sinner who was unworthy under God's eyes. Someone's mom even called me the source of evil in my school because I didn't believe in God.

And that someone's mom that you claim (which I DOUBT really happened) is no better than someone who prays to Lucifer. Why? Because they judged with definite judgment of another human's spirituality. That is forbidden.

You can be atheist and pretend God is man made, I don't care.. it doesn't bother me non. Now if you wanna slander God and God's prophets/apostles, with such disrespect, be thankful that you're on the internet. Because face to face, I'd spit on your face. But I wouldn't judge you. Remember, it's your soul, not anyone elses. No one should care bout your spiritual decision(s).

It's tough being a minority, so don't play the victim here. Us nonbelievers are the real victims, and we still don't play it.

Aww it's tough being the minority? How bout you stop boasting that you're atheist in your area and maybe, just maybe people won't care bout your belief system. Keep it to yourself and it'll be ok. lol @ minority victim.

The Shroud is, in the most intuitive sense, an obvious fake. Simply by looking at the picture on the cloth itself, you couldn't imagine it as an actual image created due to burial cover. The picture is far too two-dimensional and lacks any of the expected distortion which would occur when wrapped around a human figure. Even further, if the cloth wasn't wrapped around the figure, the image wouldn't have been imprinted in such a holistic manner - pieces would be missing (and we're not just talking the embarrassing absence of genitals).

But, beyond just the perceptual oddities, the science and history disagrees with the Jesus hypothesis anyways:

"However, apart from the fire damage, the cloth is remarkably well preserved for a reputed age of nearly 2000 years. Also, no examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave (Nickell 1998, 35; Wilson 1998, 98–99, 188; Sox 1981). In addition, Jewish burial practice utilizedâ€â€�and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesusâ€â€�multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face.

Other evidence of medieval fakery includes the shroud’s lack of historical record prior to the mid-fourteenth centuryâ€â€�when a bishop reported the artist’s confessionâ€â€�as well as serious anatomical problems, the lack of wraparound distortions, the resemblance of the figure to medieval depictions of Jesus, and suspiciously bright red and picturelike “bloodâ€� stains which failed a battery of sophisticated tests by forensic serologists, among many other indicators. These facts argue against Rogers’ assertions that the shroud is neither a forgery nor a miracleâ€â€�that “the blood is real bloodâ€� [3] and the image was produced by “a rotting bodyâ€� (Rogers 2004).

Science has proved the Shroud of Turin a medieval fake, but defenders of authenticity turn the scientific method on its head by starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidenceâ€â€�picking and choosing and reinterpreting as necessary. It is an approach I call “shroud science.â€� " [1]

The shroud, even if proven to be authentic, could not be shown to be the burial cloth of the Jesus depicted in the Biblical scriptures. Further, even if the cloth could be shown to belong to Jesus, it could never be demonstrated that, because of this, Jesus is God. There is nothing scientific, learned, or reasoning about declaring the Shroud of Turin as convincing spiritual evidence; it is a hoax.

lol @ It is a hoax...

Sweet heart, do you know what it is to have a perfectly symmetrical bone structure? It's impossible. No HUMAN OR ANIMAL could EVER have a perfectly symmetrical bone structure. The whole idea of the shroud being a hoax was debunked with the fact that if indeed was the real deal. It couldn't have been a human nor animal. Because the bone structure it 100% perfect. Not one fracture, not one bone bigger than the other nothing...

But of course as an atheist such as yourself, you'll easily look at the atheist point of view... LOL @ One day worth of research. Goodness you people really don't care about authenticity. You're no better than the Romans :\

By the way, think about what you're sayin... Medieval fake? Why would someone in the Medieval times... or how would they even leave an energetic imprint onto a shroud? Please almighty atheist, tell me your scientific equation in creating energy, shaping energy, then applying the energy onto a shroud.

Who cares, I just realized I forgot to destroy your debate into oblivion, Carbon Dating proves your whole post wrong, I almost laughed but I'm too busy thinking about food that I need to prepare. Thanks for trying though :)

Congratulations you busted yourself. You're a little too young for that Ph.D. don't you think?

PS: You're the same age as my baby sister, little boy.

I didn't bother to read the rest of your post cuz you're annoyingly stupid.

A little to young for what? Majoring in Optical Physics? I never claimed I had a PhD... It's not my fault you fail in comprehension. So I'm majoring in it, not already majored.

It's also funny that you were some how able to read all of those links entirely provided to you by me within, what? 30 minutes? You wouldn't know how to study even if a book was dropped right in front of you.

About the little boy, doesn't it suck, someone being younger than you and actually having a lot more knowledge than you? Daaaamn. Heck I even boast about me knowing English, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese...



You make me feel... superior :D

"Knowledge is key"


Please edit next time. -- Arjuna

This post has been edited by Arjuna Capulong: Jun 29 2007, 06:00 PM

[kimmytree]

^ Dude, please just shut up before you make yourself look any worse.

[illriginal]

^ Dude, please just shut up before you make yourself look any worse.

Free country, and I don't think I'm breaking any forum rules. If I am I would be warned or have a message sent to me by now :P

[sadolakced acid]

Please explain how the shroud of turin is real.

I don't want to hear any more about perfect bone structure; that simply means that the shroud isn't from a human. It doesn't mean the shroud is the real image of jesus.