…are under discussion over at the Register.
I’ve bookmarked your article. Once again, atheists beg questions while claiming objectivity.
With many of them, the only answer is: Die! Then you will see.
They don’t like to hear that. They often think it’s very cruel and unfeeling to bring up the possibility.
It’s not that it’s cruel and unfeeling, it’s that it’s a complete non-argument. Atheists are all well aware that we’ll die. Telling someone “you’ll see!” does not constitute some sort of convincing reply to anything.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m not stating an argument. I’m telling you what you already know, and what you don’t know.
I suppose if you’re not interested in convincing people of anything, that’s fair enough, but you shouldn’t really expect anyone to reply to your one liner with anything other than mockery.
I don’t give a shit about your esteem, Brandon.
As for the one liner, you might be too dead to die anyway. You might just clap out and disintegrate into a puff of dust, like a mushroom.
I’ve never really understood how people that are sure their “side” is going to be granted eternal bliss can seem so angry.
Nobody is sure. That’s presumption.
I found that to be an interesting bit of writing, but it makes a couple fairly strong claims that aren’t supported. For example:
The Atheist of the Gaps believes in such fake relics with childlike
faith no matter how badly that fake fails to actually reproduce the
Shroud. That’s because they need it to be a fake. It is an article of faith in advance of and in the teeth of all evidence.
OK, perhaps there are some of these “Atheists of the Gaps” that have such faith; I don’t personally know them, but I’m sure there are people that hold such an idea. I don’t hold such an idea, and quite a few others don’t – I (we) are happy to say, “wow, that’s really cool, and I don’t know how it came into being, I hope we learn more about this”. Isn’t it almost always better to address the most reasonable people you disagree with rather than the least?
Science says the Shroud is 800 years old. The Church disagrees, therefore atheists are irrational. Cool story?
Actually, “Science!™” says no such thing.
If you don’t consider carbon-dating and basic forensics to be “science” then that’s your call.
Um, the carbon test was only one of MANY scientific tests done on the shroud. The circumstances around the test and where the sample was taken make it questionable in it’s accuracy. All the other tests still show there is no natural explanation for how the image got on there. Nonetheless, thanks for proving Mark’s point so predictably. Catholics don’t need the Shroud to be real but Atheists such as yourself NEED it to be fake. so you cling to the one test out of many that brings it’s authenticity into question. How about you actually read the article instead of falling into typical knee-jerk reaction.
I did read it. Citation needed on “all the other tests show…” comment. The METHOD for putting a face on a shroud has been reproduced perfectly, but Mark says the face doesn’t look the same as the other face. So what? Mark is imposing an arbitrary requirement on the scientists that the original forger never had: reproducing a specific image of a face. The goal is to get a face on a shroud using medieval techniques, and science, as usual, has succeeded. Galileo sends his regards.
All the other facts show it to be bunk, to the continued embarrassment of the RCC. It’s woven using a complex herringbone weave that didn’t even exist in that time period. The blood is completely inconsistent with the Hebrew practice of cleaning bodies before death, and is dripped in a way that it could not have come from a corpse wrapped in it. It even contradicts the description given in the book of John regarding Jesus’ burial wrappings.
I thought the point about Catholics not needing miracles to be true was particularly funny, since they try to have people ARRESTED for proving miracles false. See: Sanal Edamaruku