Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Really? You're still stuck on the burial cloth that was created in the 12th century as proof of something that happened in the 1st century? Please give it up. You're embarrassing yourself. No archaeologist of any respect gives any credence to the fake Shroud of Turin. There is no blood on the Shroud of Turn. It was tested. It wasn't blood.I'm not a skeptic. I am a rational atheist. There's a difference. I'm not looking for some personal experience, I a looking for empirical evidence.Well let me rephrase that.. Some of the worlds strongest Christians were skeptics..yet because they were open when searching they were shown, in amazing ways..There are also people who are so convinced with the idea that God is a fairy-tail they wouldn't see it if it hit them in the face...
Really? The Shroud of Turin?!?! Okay, let's look at all of the ways that the Shroud of Turin is evidence of nothing:Now with that said..
We do have Empirical Evidence that Jesus indeed died on the cross...and by the blood stains on the cloth, he died exactly how the Bible said He died..
'Finding Jesus': Shroud of Turin Q&A - CNN
First of all, it is a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils. Except, no examples of complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized — and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus — multiple burial wrappings wrapped tightly around the body with a separate cloth over the face:
"When cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself…"
Sooo, we are to believe that a piece of cloth for which there is no evidence of its type existing, and which was contrary to both tradition of the time, and description in the Bible, itself, does not comport with burial, was the burial shroud of Jesus, and, magically, captured his image? Really?!?! Additionally, none of the gospels make any mention of any miraculous burial cloth after Jesus' resurrection. Curious that the most holy relic in all of Christendom doesn't even get so much as a word in its holy texts, isn't it? There are also claims of "bloodstains" on the cloth, but Hebrew law dictated cleansing of the corpse before wrapping and bodies don't bleed after death. Chemist Walter McCrone identified the substance as a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint. By the way, from your own article:
But the scientists doing the carbon dating were not amateurs, and the samples were tested in three separate labs. Moreover, the carbon date cohered with other evidence that the shroud was a medieval forgery, like the fact that there is no evidence of its existence until the 14th century.
In other words,your vaunted "Shroud of Turin" is evidence of nothing, other than the desperation of Medieval Christian fanatics to come up with some actual empirical evidence to support their mythology. I can't believe that not only did you have the audacity to call the shroud of Turin empirical evidence of the existence of jesus, but you linked to a source that calls your evidence bullshit!
We haven't even established the existence of Jesus, yet, so let's not get into his mythical "miracles", shall we?We know then by the same chapters that Jesus did indeed produce miracles that his personal disciples recorded. Even they wanted to see evidence..
We Scientifically know that John the Baptist did indeed live, and have found his remains..So there is another 2000 year old story that made it into the bible..
Scientists find new evidence supporting John the Baptist bones theory
Boy, you sure do like gilding the lilly, don't you. From your article:
While these findings do not offer conclusive evidence, they also don't refute the theory first proffered by the Bulgarian archaeologists who found the remains while excavating under an ancient church on the island.
In other words, the bones may belong to John the Baptist, or they may belong to Akhmed the Dung merchant. So far your "empirical evidence" is astonishingly underwhelming.
Here is an updated Science Journal on the topic.. as they continue with this study
They found the parts tested were cut from the area hurt by fire damage in the 13th and repaired.
From this newest study..
This result cannot be impressed on the TS by using ancient dye pigments, as they have bigger sizes and tend to aggregate, and it is highly unlikely that the eventual ancient artist would have painted a fake by using the hematic serum of someone after a heavy polytrauma.
PolyTrauma means: died by intense trauma and torture at the time of death
The markings on the shroud shows a difference in the markings of blood compared to other crucifixions. They stabbed Jesus in the side to kill him faster.. These non-man made stains show the bloods stains to line up to this.
Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud
.
I presumed that was the "gift" of which you speak. So, "God" offered this "gift" of getting into "heaven" because of his son sacrificing a bad weekend (You can't really say that he sacrificed his life, after all, he got back up, three days later, rather negating his life as a sacrifice).Except that you used the disciplining of a child as an analogy with Hell. So, either you were advocating eternal punishment of a child, or your analogy was poorly crafted.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the Atheist. I have never, and do not now, tell God to "fuck off". I do not speak to God, at all. I maintain the position that God does not exist. Why would I speak to a mythical creature that I do not recognise as existing? You get how absurd that would be, right? And I am not even dogmatic about my position. Once presented with empirical, verifiable evidence of the existence of God, I will change my position.
However, again, that "gift" requires acceptance, as well as offering. In order to accept that gift, one must first accept that God exists. So, it really does come down to being threatened with eternity in Hell for not believing in the existence in a god for which there is no empirical evidence. Bringing us back to Chris' point of being punished for simply not believing a thing.
What is the offering that you are talking about..? The death of Jesus was the last offering God required. The last word of Jesus was..It is Finished..which means His work on earth is accomplished..
Now, you can offer me a gift all you want, but until I accept that gift, it is rather useless, now isn't it? But to accept that gift, I first have to accept the proposition that God exists. And, well, we have already established what I require to accept that proposition (I'm still waiting). So, it all comes down to accepting the proposition of the existence of a God for which there is no empirical evidence. Bringing us back to Chris' point of being punished forever for simply choosing not to blindly believe something.
"what YOU REQUIRE" to accept a gift from God. alrighty then lol. Why is it the most pompous arrogant people are also the most delusional.
Maybe you should search why you keep bringing this up. Too bad a "motive bubble" doesn't appear above each posting. =)
Have you ever had spiritual beliefs of any kind? Dont you sense there is something greater than yourself out there?
"Why is it the most pompous arrogant people are also the most delusional. "
It is the height of arrogance to not just demand that magical nonsense, unsupported by a single shred of evidence, is true, but to then also threaten people that they must believe this magical nonsense (using the specter of eternal suffering, if they don't have faith in that magical nonsense). It is the height of pomposity to strut about as if every word one says is not just "correct" because that one says so, but but because the "ultimate, infallible authority" says so.
Furthermore, it is not "arrogant" to require support, theoretical or evidentiary, of a proposition. In fact, that is the opposite of arrogance, as one is admitting that one doesn't have enough information to know or believe something. It is also the opposite of "pompous", as claiming ignorance is humble, as is respecting actual knowledge, earned by hard work. (Tangentially, as opposed to these big, eternal, ultimate "truths", which are apparently learned by laziness. "turn off your mind.... use your imagination.... imagine a higher power...believe.... believe..."... pure laziness.)
And lastly.... delusional? A person demanding evidence for a claim is not delusional; he is thinking quite clearly. A person believing something without a shred of evidence who claims to have evidence is delusional. A person who believes something without a shred of evidence, then argues to the authority of the truth of the idea, is delusional. A person who insists upon denying scientific fact to maintain the truth of his faith is delusional.
LOL...you go back and forth..saying that that it is not demanding ,yet then you excuse demanding..lol
Well you must admit that there is something there if millions upon millions believe in this . You don't see too many people walking around saying that a doorknob is their higher power..
.
God is not sending to Hell. YOU are! You are the one who sinned. You are the one who is rejecting a gift, bought at a terrible price. Quit blaming God. It's like blaming Bush. YOU are responsible for where you spend eternity. No one else.First of all, I never said anything about punishing a child for eternity. I was simply using it as an example that actions have consequences. God does not send people to Hell for not believing in Him. They send themselves to Hell because they refused to admit that they are a sinner and spit in the face of God. They say that they want nothing to do with God. God simply grants them their wish. Think about the magnitude of such a crime. You are telling the One who created you and deserves your worship to f*ck off and die. If I was God, I be pretty pissed about that. Wouldn't you? And, as I have mentioned before, God gave us a way out. It's a free gift. You don't have to earn it. Simple believe and repent. BTW, the Bible teaches that everyone is born with an awareness of God. But most people suppress this awareness because they love their sin more than their Creator. Such selfish arrogance deserves eternity in Hell. Wouldn't you agree?Especially you don't beat them when they haven't done anything wrong. Not believing in something is NOT wrong or bad or evil.
A way out of WHAT exactly? How about this God critter just leaves me alone? I didn't ask for him to create me. I will not worship something that places his own creations into a fire pit for "punishment." I think it is wrong and evil. That doesn't describe anything that I would ever consider "good."You know, that type of responseGod is not sending to Hell. YOU are! You are the one who sinned. You are the one who is rejecting a gift, bought at a terrible price. Quit blaming God. It's like blaming Bush. YOU are responsible for where you spend eternity. No one else.
doesn't draw people to God, it pushes them farther away
First of all, her argument, reasoning, is valid...
your response was totally out of line and improper
What was the point of telling her
to quit blaming God...SHE'S sending herself to hell
SHE'S the one who sinned...SHE is rejecting Jesus
SHE is responsible for where she spends eternity
Why would she blame God, if she doesn't believe in Him?
Why would a loving and merciful God, create hell?
Why would she differentiate sin from right and wrong?
How could she accept a wonderful gift,
and realize the price it cost,
if she does not know Who gave it to her?
How is she, alone, responsible for
where she spends eternity, if it is dependent on
who is watering the seed that was obviously planted?
You're in for a rude awakening.No, you're in for a rude awakening,And that is exactly why you are going to Hell. The sin of pride. You have sinned. Everyone has.
if you keep telling people they are going to hell!
You have no idea what God is doing in her life
or the road He paved for her to find Him!
If I were you, I'd stop focusing on
the relationship she doesn't have with Him,
and focus on the relationship you think you have with Him!
Better still, stop preaching...Please try to stay on topic. Better yet, I'll just ignore you. How's that?
telling her she's going to hell, then, you'll just ignore her...
Believing in God is not enough!
You are too wise in your own eyes!
No, I'm agnostic, as I see no proof for or against the possibility of a god, but am willing to change my mind given real proof either way.Your definition of Atheism is too narrow. And atheist would not say that God cannot exist. An Atheist said God does not exist. You are making a statement of faith, as much as a theist does. So, tell me, you claim It is impossible for God to exist. Is that a fair assessment of your position?Then you are an agnostic, you see no proof of god but are willing to change your mind if some real proof shows up. You are not saying that god is not possible. Which is what an atheist would say.Again, you confuse the rational statement of a position with dogmatic adherence to a belief. I do not believe that God either exists, or doesn't exist. My belief is irrelevant to the rational, factual evidence. I hold the position of the Null Hypothesis: God does not exist. All I'm doing now, is waiting for someone to present me with objective, verifiable, empirical evidence to demonstrate that this position is false. I will then, willingly, adjust my position accordingly.Atheists are just as deluded as theists, as there's no proof that a god cannot be possible.
Why is it the most pompous arrogant people are also the most delusional.I presumed that was the "gift" of which you speak. So, "God" offered this "gift" of getting into "heaven" because of his son sacrificing a bad weekend (You can't really say that he sacrificed his life, after all, he got back up, three days later, rather negating his life as a sacrifice).Except that you used the disciplining of a child as an analogy with Hell. So, either you were advocating eternal punishment of a child, or your analogy was poorly crafted.First of all, I never said anything about punishing a child for eternity.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the Atheist. I have never, and do not now, tell God to "fuck off". I do not speak to God, at all. I maintain the position that God does not exist. Why would I speak to a mythical creature that I do not recognise as existing? You get how absurd that would be, right? And I am not even dogmatic about my position. Once presented with empirical, verifiable evidence of the existence of God, I will change my position.God does not send people to Hell for not believing in Him. They send themselves to Hell because they refused to admit that they are a sinner and spit in the face of God. They say that they want nothing to do with God. God simply grants them their wish. Think about the magnitude of such a crime. You are telling the One who created you and deserves your worship to f*ck off and die.
However, again, that "gift" requires acceptance, as well as offering. In order to accept that gift, one must first accept that God exists. So, it really does come down to being threatened with eternity in Hell for not believing in the existence in a god for which there is no empirical evidence. Bringing us back to Chris' point of being punished for simply not believing a thing.God gave us a way out. It's a free gift. You don't have to earn it. Simple believe and repent. BTW, the Bible teaches that everyone is born with an awareness of God. But most people suppress this awareness because they love their sin more than their Creator. Such selfish arrogance deserves eternity in Hell. Wouldn't you agree?
What is the offering that you are talking about..? The death of Jesus was the last offering God required. The last word of Jesus was..It is Finished..which means His work on earth is accomplished..
Now, you can offer me a gift all you want, but until I accept that gift, it is rather useless, now isn't it? But to accept that gift, I first have to accept the proposition that God exists. And, well, we have already established what I require to accept that proposition (I'm still waiting). So, it all comes down to accepting the proposition of the existence of a God for which there is no empirical evidence. Bringing us back to Chris' point of being punished forever for simply choosing not to blindly believe something.
"what YOU REQUIRE" to accept a gift from God. alrighty then lol. Why is it the most pompous arrogant people are also the most delusional.
Maybe you should search why you keep bringing this up. Too bad a "motive bubble" doesn't appear above each posting. =)
Have you ever had spiritual beliefs of any kind? Dont you sense there is something greater than yourself out there?
It's arrogant, and delusional to expect some empirical evidence of the existence of a Invisible Sky Daddy, before I choose to devote my life to not pissing him off? Really????
Have you ever had spiritual beliefs of any kind?
Sure I did, when I was younger. I also believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. As one grows, and learns how to employ logic, and reasoning, it becomes easier to discard irrational beliefs that have no empirical evidence to support them.
Dont you sense there is something greater than yourself out there?
I presume you mean, do I sense there is something supernatural out there. No. No, I don't.
Well, you can call yourself whatever you like, I suppose. I'm Atheist. I will stand by the position God does not exist, until such time as it demonstrated to be false.No, I'm agnostic, as I see no proof for or against the possibility of a god, but am willing to change my mind given real proof either way.Your definition of Atheism is too narrow. And atheist would not say that God cannot exist. An Atheist said God does not exist. You are making a statement of faith, as much as a theist does. So, tell me, you claim It is impossible for God to exist. Is that a fair assessment of your position?Then you are an agnostic, you see no proof of god but are willing to change your mind if some real proof shows up. You are not saying that god is not possible. Which is what an atheist would say.Again, you confuse the rational statement of a position with dogmatic adherence to a belief. I do not believe that God either exists, or doesn't exist. My belief is irrelevant to the rational, factual evidence. I hold the position of the Null Hypothesis: God does not exist. All I'm doing now, is waiting for someone to present me with objective, verifiable, empirical evidence to demonstrate that this position is false. I will then, willingly, adjust my position accordingly.Atheists are just as deluded as theists, as there's no proof that a god cannot be possible.
I'm not worried about superiority, that would be you guys. As far as having life "figured out", I don't know about that. The only thing I can say with certainty is that I have my life figured out. And, after all, isn't that all we are required to figure out? Not my job to figure your life out for you. That's your responsibility. And if you choose to abdicate that responsibility to an imaginary Sky Daddy based on a 2,000-year-old book of myths, and fairy tales. More power to ya. Have fun with that. Just don't pretend that you have made a rational choice.Why is it the most pompous arrogant people are also the most delusional.I presumed that was the "gift" of which you speak. So, "God" offered this "gift" of getting into "heaven" because of his son sacrificing a bad weekend (You can't really say that he sacrificed his life, after all, he got back up, three days later, rather negating his life as a sacrifice).Except that you used the disciplining of a child as an analogy with Hell. So, either you were advocating eternal punishment of a child, or your analogy was poorly crafted.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the Atheist. I have never, and do not now, tell God to "fuck off". I do not speak to God, at all. I maintain the position that God does not exist. Why would I speak to a mythical creature that I do not recognise as existing? You get how absurd that would be, right? And I am not even dogmatic about my position. Once presented with empirical, verifiable evidence of the existence of God, I will change my position.
However, again, that "gift" requires acceptance, as well as offering. In order to accept that gift, one must first accept that God exists. So, it really does come down to being threatened with eternity in Hell for not believing in the existence in a god for which there is no empirical evidence. Bringing us back to Chris' point of being punished for simply not believing a thing.
What is the offering that you are talking about..? The death of Jesus was the last offering God required. The last word of Jesus was..It is Finished..which means His work on earth is accomplished..
Now, you can offer me a gift all you want, but until I accept that gift, it is rather useless, now isn't it? But to accept that gift, I first have to accept the proposition that God exists. And, well, we have already established what I require to accept that proposition (I'm still waiting). So, it all comes down to accepting the proposition of the existence of a God for which there is no empirical evidence. Bringing us back to Chris' point of being punished forever for simply choosing not to blindly believe something.
"what YOU REQUIRE" to accept a gift from God. alrighty then lol. Why is it the most pompous arrogant people are also the most delusional.
Maybe you should search why you keep bringing this up. Too bad a "motive bubble" doesn't appear above each posting. =)
Have you ever had spiritual beliefs of any kind? Dont you sense there is something greater than yourself out there?
It's arrogant, and delusional to expect some empirical evidence of the existence of a Invisible Sky Daddy, before I choose to devote my life to not pissing him off? Really????
Have you ever had spiritual beliefs of any kind?
Sure I did, when I was younger. I also believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. As one grows, and learns how to employ logic, and reasoning, it becomes easier to discard irrational beliefs that have no empirical evidence to support them.
Dont you sense there is something greater than yourself out there?
I presume you mean, do I sense there is something supernatural out there. No. No, I don't.
If someone claims they are living for the purpose of "not pissing God off..." that's hardly Christianity...in fact it couldn't be further from the truth.
...looks like you should go on and be a happy superior atheist. You seem to have life all figured out.
"Which is what an atheist would say."Then you are an agnostic, you see no proof of god but are willing to change your mind if some real proof shows up. You are not saying that god is not possible. Which is what an atheist would say.Again, you confuse the rational statement of a position with dogmatic adherence to a belief. I do not believe that God either exists, or doesn't exist. My belief is irrelevant to the rational, factual evidence. I hold the position of the Null Hypothesis: God does not exist. All I'm doing now, is waiting for someone to present me with objective, verifiable, empirical evidence to demonstrate that this position is false. I will then, willingly, adjust my position accordingly.Atheists are just as deluded as theists, as there's no proof that a god cannot be possible.
"LOL...you go back and forth..saying that that it is not demanding ,yet then you excuse demanding"I presumed that was the "gift" of which you speak. So, "God" offered this "gift" of getting into "heaven" because of his son sacrificing a bad weekend (You can't really say that he sacrificed his life, after all, he got back up, three days later, rather negating his life as a sacrifice).Except that you used the disciplining of a child as an analogy with Hell. So, either you were advocating eternal punishment of a child, or your analogy was poorly crafted.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the Atheist. I have never, and do not now, tell God to "fuck off". I do not speak to God, at all. I maintain the position that God does not exist. Why would I speak to a mythical creature that I do not recognise as existing? You get how absurd that would be, right? And I am not even dogmatic about my position. Once presented with empirical, verifiable evidence of the existence of God, I will change my position.
However, again, that "gift" requires acceptance, as well as offering. In order to accept that gift, one must first accept that God exists. So, it really does come down to being threatened with eternity in Hell for not believing in the existence in a god for which there is no empirical evidence. Bringing us back to Chris' point of being punished for simply not believing a thing.
What is the offering that you are talking about..? The death of Jesus was the last offering God required. The last word of Jesus was..It is Finished..which means His work on earth is accomplished..
Now, you can offer me a gift all you want, but until I accept that gift, it is rather useless, now isn't it? But to accept that gift, I first have to accept the proposition that God exists. And, well, we have already established what I require to accept that proposition (I'm still waiting). So, it all comes down to accepting the proposition of the existence of a God for which there is no empirical evidence. Bringing us back to Chris' point of being punished forever for simply choosing not to blindly believe something.
"what YOU REQUIRE" to accept a gift from God. alrighty then lol. Why is it the most pompous arrogant people are also the most delusional.
Maybe you should search why you keep bringing this up. Too bad a "motive bubble" doesn't appear above each posting. =)
Have you ever had spiritual beliefs of any kind? Dont you sense there is something greater than yourself out there?
"Why is it the most pompous arrogant people are also the most delusional. "
It is the height of arrogance to not just demand that magical nonsense, unsupported by a single shred of evidence, is true, but to then also threaten people that they must believe this magical nonsense (using the specter of eternal suffering, if they don't have faith in that magical nonsense). It is the height of pomposity to strut about as if every word one says is not just "correct" because that one says so, but but because the "ultimate, infallible authority" says so.
Furthermore, it is not "arrogant" to require support, theoretical or evidentiary, of a proposition. In fact, that is the opposite of arrogance, as one is admitting that one doesn't have enough information to know or believe something. It is also the opposite of "pompous", as claiming ignorance is humble, as is respecting actual knowledge, earned by hard work. (Tangentially, as opposed to these big, eternal, ultimate "truths", which are apparently learned by laziness. "turn off your mind.... use your imagination.... imagine a higher power...believe.... believe..."... pure laziness.)
And lastly.... delusional? A person demanding evidence for a claim is not delusional; he is thinking quite clearly. A person believing something without a shred of evidence who claims to have evidence is delusional. A person who believes something without a shred of evidence, then argues to the authority of the truth of the idea, is delusional. A person who insists upon denying scientific fact to maintain the truth of his faith is delusional.
LOL...you go back and forth..saying that that it is not demanding ,yet then you excuse demanding..lol
Well you must admit that there is something there if millions upon millions believe in this . You don't see too many people walking around saying that a doorknob is their higher power..
.
Really? You're still stuck on the burial cloth that was created in the 12th century as proof of something that happened in the 1st century? Please give it up. You're embarrassing yourself. No archaeologist of any respect gives any credence to the fake Shroud of Turin. There is no blood on the Shroud of Turn. It was tested. It wasn't blood.I'm not a skeptic. I am a rational atheist. There's a difference. I'm not looking for some personal experience, I a looking for empirical evidence.Well let me rephrase that.. Some of the worlds strongest Christians were skeptics..yet because they were open when searching they were shown, in amazing ways..There are also people who are so convinced with the idea that God is a fairy-tail they wouldn't see it if it hit them in the face...
Really? The Shroud of Turin?!?! Okay, let's look at all of the ways that the Shroud of Turin is evidence of nothing:Now with that said..
We do have Empirical Evidence that Jesus indeed died on the cross...and by the blood stains on the cloth, he died exactly how the Bible said He died..
'Finding Jesus': Shroud of Turin Q&A - CNN
First of all, it is a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils. Except, no examples of complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized — and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus — multiple burial wrappings wrapped tightly around the body with a separate cloth over the face:
"When cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself…"
Sooo, we are to believe that a piece of cloth for which there is no evidence of its type existing, and which was contrary to both tradition of the time, and description in the Bible, itself, does not comport with burial, was the burial shroud of Jesus, and, magically, captured his image? Really?!?! Additionally, none of the gospels make any mention of any miraculous burial cloth after Jesus' resurrection. Curious that the most holy relic in all of Christendom doesn't even get so much as a word in its holy texts, isn't it? There are also claims of "bloodstains" on the cloth, but Hebrew law dictated cleansing of the corpse before wrapping and bodies don't bleed after death. Chemist Walter McCrone identified the substance as a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint. By the way, from your own article:
But the scientists doing the carbon dating were not amateurs, and the samples were tested in three separate labs. Moreover, the carbon date cohered with other evidence that the shroud was a medieval forgery, like the fact that there is no evidence of its existence until the 14th century.
In other words,your vaunted "Shroud of Turin" is evidence of nothing, other than the desperation of Medieval Christian fanatics to come up with some actual empirical evidence to support their mythology. I can't believe that not only did you have the audacity to call the shroud of Turin empirical evidence of the existence of jesus, but you linked to a source that calls your evidence bullshit!
We haven't even established the existence of Jesus, yet, so let's not get into his mythical "miracles", shall we?We know then by the same chapters that Jesus did indeed produce miracles that his personal disciples recorded. Even they wanted to see evidence..
We Scientifically know that John the Baptist did indeed live, and have found his remains..So there is another 2000 year old story that made it into the bible..
Scientists find new evidence supporting John the Baptist bones theory
Boy, you sure do like gilding the lilly, don't you. From your article:
While these findings do not offer conclusive evidence, they also don't refute the theory first proffered by the Bulgarian archaeologists who found the remains while excavating under an ancient church on the island.
In other words, the bones may belong to John the Baptist, or they may belong to Akhmed the Dung merchant. So far your "empirical evidence" is astonishingly underwhelming.
Here is an updated Science Journal on the topic.. as they continue with this study
They found the parts tested were cut from the area hurt by fire damage in the 13th and repaired.
From this newest study..
This result cannot be impressed on the TS by using ancient dye pigments, as they have bigger sizes and tend to aggregate, and it is highly unlikely that the eventual ancient artist would have painted a fake by using the hematic serum of someone after a heavy polytrauma.
PolyTrauma means: died by intense trauma and torture at the time of death
The markings on the shroud shows a difference in the markings of blood compared to other crucifixions. They stabbed Jesus in the side to kill him faster.. These non-man made stains show the bloods stains to line up to this.
Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud
.
Oh, for fuck's sakes! Now you are denying science (carbon dating) in order to claim that the Shroud of Turin is a scientific discovery. Give it up, Slick. The Shroud of Turin is a hoax. If it makes you feel better believing in it, that's up to you. But, please quit trying to convince me that it is something that it clearly isn't.Really? You're still stuck on the burial cloth that was created in the 12th century as proof of something that happened in the 1st century? Please give it up. You're embarrassing yourself. No archaeologist of any respect gives any credence to the fake Shroud of Turin. There is no blood on the Shroud of Turn. It was tested. It wasn't blood.I'm not a skeptic. I am a rational atheist. There's a difference. I'm not looking for some personal experience, I a looking for empirical evidence.Well let me rephrase that.. Some of the worlds strongest Christians were skeptics..yet because they were open when searching they were shown, in amazing ways..There are also people who are so convinced with the idea that God is a fairy-tail they wouldn't see it if it hit them in the face...
Really? The Shroud of Turin?!?! Okay, let's look at all of the ways that the Shroud of Turin is evidence of nothing:Now with that said..
We do have Empirical Evidence that Jesus indeed died on the cross...and by the blood stains on the cloth, he died exactly how the Bible said He died..
'Finding Jesus': Shroud of Turin Q&A - CNN
First of all, it is a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils. Except, no examples of complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized — and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus — multiple burial wrappings wrapped tightly around the body with a separate cloth over the face:
"When cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself…"
Sooo, we are to believe that a piece of cloth for which there is no evidence of its type existing, and which was contrary to both tradition of the time, and description in the Bible, itself, does not comport with burial, was the burial shroud of Jesus, and, magically, captured his image? Really?!?! Additionally, none of the gospels make any mention of any miraculous burial cloth after Jesus' resurrection. Curious that the most holy relic in all of Christendom doesn't even get so much as a word in its holy texts, isn't it? There are also claims of "bloodstains" on the cloth, but Hebrew law dictated cleansing of the corpse before wrapping and bodies don't bleed after death. Chemist Walter McCrone identified the substance as a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint. By the way, from your own article:
But the scientists doing the carbon dating were not amateurs, and the samples were tested in three separate labs. Moreover, the carbon date cohered with other evidence that the shroud was a medieval forgery, like the fact that there is no evidence of its existence until the 14th century.
In other words,your vaunted "Shroud of Turin" is evidence of nothing, other than the desperation of Medieval Christian fanatics to come up with some actual empirical evidence to support their mythology. I can't believe that not only did you have the audacity to call the shroud of Turin empirical evidence of the existence of jesus, but you linked to a source that calls your evidence bullshit!
We haven't even established the existence of Jesus, yet, so let's not get into his mythical "miracles", shall we?We know then by the same chapters that Jesus did indeed produce miracles that his personal disciples recorded. Even they wanted to see evidence..
We Scientifically know that John the Baptist did indeed live, and have found his remains..So there is another 2000 year old story that made it into the bible..
Scientists find new evidence supporting John the Baptist bones theory
Boy, you sure do like gilding the lilly, don't you. From your article:
While these findings do not offer conclusive evidence, they also don't refute the theory first proffered by the Bulgarian archaeologists who found the remains while excavating under an ancient church on the island.
In other words, the bones may belong to John the Baptist, or they may belong to Akhmed the Dung merchant. So far your "empirical evidence" is astonishingly underwhelming.
Here is an updated Science Journal on the topic.. as they continue with this study
They found the parts tested were cut from the area hurt by fire damage in the 13th and repaired.
From this newest study..
This result cannot be impressed on the TS by using ancient dye pigments, as they have bigger sizes and tend to aggregate, and it is highly unlikely that the eventual ancient artist would have painted a fake by using the hematic serum of someone after a heavy polytrauma.
PolyTrauma means: died by intense trauma and torture at the time of death
The markings on the shroud shows a difference in the markings of blood compared to other crucifixions. They stabbed Jesus in the side to kill him faster.. These non-man made stains show the bloods stains to line up to this.
Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud
.
Really? Listen, there are so many scientist's of all faiths still exploring this..This is not a closed case .. except in your mind.
There is not Empirical Evidence that it is a Fake..dude
This is an excellent Scientific A++ link to read on the shroud . Which can explain it much better than me..
"If the shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390 AD, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in 1260 AD would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978... The Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test [i.e. tested positive] for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."
Shroud of Turin - evidence it is authentic; the real shroud of Jesus Christ
.
Please actually understand what the word faith means. It doesn't work in your sentence.Just a bit of insight on what it means to be an atheist. It's actually easier to allow one's self to believe in God than it is to be an atheist. Being an atheist means there is no Devil to blame, no afterlife to reunite with loved ones, no personal cosmic bodyguard, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's thoughts, actions, and prosperity, or lack thereof, lack of acceptance from a religion infused society, and no easy explanation for our existence.
Atheism is not for the weak.
Yeah ... I bet atheism takes a lot of faith.
.
Please actually understand what the word faith means. It doesn't work in your sentence.Just a bit of insight on what it means to be an atheist. It's actually easier to allow one's self to believe in God than it is to be an atheist. Being an atheist means there is no Devil to blame, no afterlife to reunite with loved ones, no personal cosmic bodyguard, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's thoughts, actions, and prosperity, or lack thereof, lack of acceptance from a religion infused society, and no easy explanation for our existence.
Atheism is not for the weak.
Yeah ... I bet atheism takes a lot of faith.
.
You will have to explain this. I know for a fact that there have been at least several hundreds gods put forth throughout humanity. I'm quite sure you don't believe in all of them. Are you saying that the ones you don't believe in are because of your lack of rationale and logic?It takes no courage to be an atheist. What atheism does require, however, is that one suspend logical, rationale thought. That is all.
You just provided evidence in support of me. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proven. Atheism is an absence of belief. Get it together.Please actually understand what the word faith means. It doesn't work in your sentence.Just a bit of insight on what it means to be an atheist. It's actually easier to allow one's self to believe in God than it is to be an atheist. Being an atheist means there is no Devil to blame, no afterlife to reunite with loved ones, no personal cosmic bodyguard, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's thoughts, actions, and prosperity, or lack thereof, lack of acceptance from a religion infused society, and no easy explanation for our existence.
Atheism is not for the weak.
Yeah ... I bet atheism takes a lot of faith.
.
I believe the second definition fits perfectly.
FAITH
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.
Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
Assume that there is a Devil. Wouldn't the Devil persecute the one true religion more than anything else? Now, consider that Christians are the most persecuted group on the planet.You will have to explain this. I know for a fact that there have been several hundreds gods put forth throughout humanity. I'm quite sure you don't believe in all of them. Are you saying that the ones you don't believe in are because of your lack of rationale and logic?It takes no courage to be an atheist. What atheism does require, however, is that one suspend logical, rationale thought. That is all.
Atheists BELIEVE that there is no God.You just provided evidence in support of me. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proven. Atheism is an absence of belief. Get it together.Please actually understand what the word faith means. It doesn't work in your sentence.Just a bit of insight on what it means to be an atheist. It's actually easier to allow one's self to believe in God than it is to be an atheist. Being an atheist means there is no Devil to blame, no afterlife to reunite with loved ones, no personal cosmic bodyguard, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's thoughts, actions, and prosperity, or lack thereof, lack of acceptance from a religion infused society, and no easy explanation for our existence.
Atheism is not for the weak.
Yeah ... I bet atheism takes a lot of faith.
.
I believe the second definition fits perfectly.
FAITH
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.
Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
You just provided evidence in support of me. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proven. Atheism is an absence of belief. Get it together.Please actually understand what the word faith means. It doesn't work in your sentence.Just a bit of insight on what it means to be an atheist. It's actually easier to allow one's self to believe in God than it is to be an atheist. Being an atheist means there is no Devil to blame, no afterlife to reunite with loved ones, no personal cosmic bodyguard, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's thoughts, actions, and prosperity, or lack thereof, lack of acceptance from a religion infused society, and no easy explanation for our existence.
Atheism is not for the weak.
Yeah ... I bet atheism takes a lot of faith.
.
I believe the second definition fits perfectly.
FAITH
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.
Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
Why would I.Assume that there is a Devil.You will have to explain this. I know for a fact that there have been several hundreds gods put forth throughout humanity. I'm quite sure you don't believe in all of them. Are you saying that the ones you don't believe in are because of your lack of rationale and logic?It takes no courage to be an atheist. What atheism does require, however, is that one suspend logical, rationale thought. That is all.
Now you are asking a hypothetical question about some thing that doesn't exist.Wouldn't the Devil persecute the one true religion more than anything else?
No where even close. Try and actually to challenge my post.Now, consider that Christians are the most persecuted group on the planet.
