A thread for Apolyton users who don't believe in God

[MrFun]

I know, but I believe Monk only wants non-believers to participate in this thread for some reason, as indicated by his title.

[MikeH]

Does that mean he can't participate in it anymore either?

[MrFun]

hmmmmm . . . . . . . . .

[MikeH]

[Chowlett]

In fact, the New Testament itself refers to Jesus' brothers.

[Caligastia]

The Shroud of Turin is hardly "proof" of the existence of God.

[orange]

yes, i fail to see how a shroud could prove God exists

[Bosh]

Proof of micro evolution!= proof of evolution.

Of course it is, since there's no qualitative difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Its like saying me taking a few steps doesn't prove I'm able to walk.

And As far as history goes, there is a jewish historian who talks about Jesus named Josepheus

Josephus' mention of Jesus is a rather blantant later Christian forgery (or at the very least a gross alternation) since in that passage about Jesus he "wrote" he calls Jesus the Messiah while its quite clear he wasn't a Christian.

Well, all scholars agree that Christianity came into being because the original disciples believed that God had raised Jesus from the dead, and they proclaimed this message everywhere that they went.

Hardly

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585672521/qid=1022603292/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8396490-6565559

implies the reality of the resurrection

Hardly

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

And for more info on the shroud look here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/shroud.html

[Lemmy]

yup, even you did prove that jesus existed, you would still have to prove everything he's been saying about god, i suppose for partial believers, the prove of Jesus' existance would be enough to prove god's existence.

I myself have no problem with the existence of Jesus, unless he's an alien off course....
<-----

[Boris Godunov]

Personally I think the rational explanation is that Joseph and Mary made the beast with two backs before they were married but then made up the whole immaculate conception thing to cover themselves. Luckily everyone was stupid enough to buy it even though it's a preposterous excuse.

Actually, I have read the Immaculate Conception story is one that was likely fabricated well after Jesus had died by his zealous followers as further proof of his divinity. This is bizarre, as these followers claim such a thing was foretold of the coming Messiah in the Old Testament, but the OT says no such thing in its prophecies, AFIK.

There is also plenty of speculation that Jesus never claimed divinity for himself, and this was also made up by his followers to give further creedence to their sect.

The Shroud is certainly a fake. The "debunking" of the C-14 dating is simply not valid, much like the supposed debunking of such tests for ancient fossils.

Besides that, all one has to do is just LOOK at the thing. It doesn't look like a realistic image of a person's face at all. But it does look like many paintings and etchings of Jesus from the time period (the 1300s).

Relics in no way prove the existence of God.

(Oh crap...I just realized...I'm an agnostic, so guess I shouldn't have posted... )

[Guynemer]

How could the Shroud perfectly match the description of the crucifixion if we've already got four very different but all accepted descriptions of the crucifixion in the Gospels?

Okay, that sentence made no sense, but I think you get my point.

I have no problem with faith; but when science or investigation proves that relics are false (Shroud of Turin, Donation of Constantine), accept it. Surely even faithful people can conceive that certain trappings of faith have been falsified in order to make the faith stronger. It doesn't invalidate the faith itself.

[mindseye]

* As Boris G pointed out, the alledged problems with the carbon-dating analysis are completely bogus. The orginal findings stand.

* As others have noted, the image is simply not consistant with what one would expect from a burial cloth wrapped around a body (e.g. lack of distortions, the way front and back of the head meets)

* Multiple tests have confirmed that the image is made of paint and medium commonly used in medieval times. No blood has been found anywhere on the shroud.

* All the business about pollen, limestone, etc. is a bunch of hokum perpetrated by one Max Frei, who was involved in "authenticating" another known forgery, the "Hitler Diaries". Even the Vatican has backed away from those claims.

* Historically, a bishop reported to Pope Clement that the image was a known forgery.

Monkspider, most of that long list you copied is just rubbish, I'm afraid. Here are just two of the many laughable examples:

-encode the appearance of a Pontius pilate lepton over the right eye of the man so that only when photography, photographic enlargers and three-dimensional reliefs are invented 600 years later, the motif, letters, and outline of the coin can be ascertained.

This assumes that someone painted the coins. What about pressing a cloth against a paint-daubbed model with coins placed on his eyes (a highly likely means of producing a forgery)? Naaah, too simple!

-Encode the wound on the cloth at the man’s left side so that when the image was photographed 500 years later, the wound would be located in the precisely correct location on the man’s right side so that blood and water would escape from the victim if he receieved a postmortem wound at this location.

Um, yeah, there is precisely one correct location where a pierced body would leak water and blood.

Sorry, the thing is a marvelous forgery.

[Boris Godunov]

Another interesting point about such faith issues are Stigmata. Supposedly, intensely devout people develop wounds exactly like the wounds Jesus received at the crucifixion from being nailed to the cross.

However, such wounds as they appear in photos of people are invariably incorrect, has they show wounds in the palms of the hands. Jesus was certainly not nailed to the cross through his palms, but rather his wrists. Had the nails been driven into his palms, the weight of his body would have been enough to cause the nails to rip through the top of his hands, thus he would have fallen from the cross. Besides that, it is well-documented that the method of crucifixion was always nailing at the wrists.

So unless God himself is making an error when he gives his faithful stigmata, I'd chalk it up to either hoaxes or psychosomatic occurences.

[monkspider]

Fun et al, any are free to post here of course.
Hi mindseye, let me address a few of your claims

* As Boris G pointed out, the alledged problems with the carbon-dating analysis are completely bogus. The orginal findings stand.

There is really more than suficent reason to believe that the Carbon-dating was incorrect. I explained the reason regarding fungal growth found on the shroud which was tested on three other textiles , and the age was all thrown off by a similar degree. Of course, if we accept that it was a medevil forger, how can explain all of the shroud's unique properties?

* Multiple tests have confirmed that the image is made of paint and medium commonly used in medieval times. No blood has been found anywhere on the shroud.

I'm not sure where you got this particular info, but STURP (a team of scientists, made of respected atheists, agnostics, and christians) proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no known substance that could have created the shroud. Aside from Chemical tests and so forth that would have indicated the presence of materials, but the fact that there is no directionality (such as would be the case with pain strokes) and that the image is encoded superficialy on the very top level of fibrils along with it's unique three-dimensionality make it impossible to have been a painting anyway. Also, see my response to a poster earlier in this thread regarding the blood that appears on the shroud.

* All the business about pollen, limestone, etc. is a bunch of hokum perpetrated by one Max Frei, who was involved in "authenticating" another known forgery, the "Hitler Diaries".

Dr. Max Frei was the one who originally discovered the pollen samples, I don't think he had anything to do with the limestone findings, but he was the one who originally traced the pollen samples. It is also true that he thought the "Hitler Diaries" was the real thing, which does take away some of his credibility. But that simple fact shouldn't invalidate all of his life's work. But in any event, the case is moot, because the world's leading botanist on the flowers of the middle east by the name of Danin has confirmed the presence of those pollens and flower images in 1999. Here's a couple links on when he did that.

http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9906/15/shroud.of.turin/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_411000/411366.stm

*This assumes that someone painted the coins. What about pressing a cloth against a paint-daubbed model with coins placed on his eyes (a highly likely means of producing a forgery)? Naaah, too simple

fair point, however there are no traces of paint or any such substance on the shroud. Even if there was, doing such a thing while maintaining the image on only the superficial fibrils of the shroud, the three-dimensionality, and so forth, would be impossible anyway.

Thanks for taking the time to look into my post mindseye.

[Ignorance]

The whole debate is meaningless.

Even if the shroud is real and has once had man known as Jesus wrapped in it, it doesn't tell anything about existance of God.