Sam Harris: On Secular Fundamentalism

[@DoctorFastest]

"There's no proposition you have to accept on the basis of insufficient evidence in order to not believe in Poseidon." Brilliant. Really sums up why the term 'atheist fundamentalism' is so silly.

[@harsharnkaur2075]

the dogma that secular fundamentalists have accepted is that science is perfect and reasonable. That science or statistics are objective and pure. IIt implies that statistics come in a vacuum and cannot be contaminated by framing or ideology which is absolutely false. Secular fundamentalism upholds "science" and statistics as above criticism and ridicules anyone who disagrees! This is why it is a dogma.

[@youwaisef]

Accepting that science is perfect is not possible if one were to understand what science is. It is the only way you can minimize error in a way that is removed from the personal or subjective understanding of findings and discoveries. Science does not give perfect answers because it is a process that develops and keeps on correcting itself over time. That means it is impossible, literally, for science to be perfect. If someone says science is perfect, then they do not understand what science is. If someone deems science to be 100% true no matter the methodology for example or that there could never be another answer, then they are really being dogmatic. I think there might be some people who are like that. They could be very dogmatic, and that is very dangerous. However, the first thing to do in order to clarify whether a person in question is dogmatic is to confirm as best we could if they really were dogmatic. Otherwise, it would be a witch hunt based on a feeling of panic.

[@vamshik]

This man always exceeds expectations, he has a very deep knowledge in neuroscience and religion.

[@losghost]

I am a die hard atheist and large fan of hitchens, tyson, dawkins, and harris but if the intent is to get the message to the faithful, they are really going to need to work on dumbing down the message. Most of the devout people I know would be glassy eyed and lost within the first 30 seconds of this message. Yes, I'm saying that blindly faithful people tend to be less intelligent.

[@qaplatlhinganmaH]

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

[@Sizifus]

For people like him I'm proud I'm a human being :)

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able like i said before, skepticism is necessary to push the debate. It was the early skeptics that formulated the STURP team to get to the bottom of the shroud issue. And thankfully in doing so, they highlighted all of the unique qualities and information about the burial cloth. We will get nowhere if there is nobody to challenge things. That is why i enjoy the debates

[@gtaivpcvids]

You make my point for me. It is this aspect of science that is it's greatest strength! I'm surprised to hear you offer it as a drawback... The shifting you refer to is the constantly updated understanding of everything, a model of reality as we currently know it. This is an ongoing process that has always been and is now being severely hampered by powerful interests who believe as you seem to. Circular arguments won't earn your Yahweh a phd, either. |D

[@1kdtaylor]

I agree. Which is why I took care to say that I am not necessarily defending any of the 5 tenets I have listed. I merely call attention to them as unprovable tenets held as self-evident truths by Positivists. I am sure you know that very few Positivists, if any, would be willing to throw Einstein's theory of special relativity out the window.

[@OGREMIKE03]

@DataSe7en I must say that you wrapped them both up as well as one can do in a few sentences. That being said, I don't think either is more valuable to our community then the other. Im not trying to ride the fence here, but I like them equally. I love Harris' ability to be respectful while demolishing religious dogma through logic that anyone can comprehend. But I tend to agree w/ Dawkins that the time for respect toward religion has passed. It affects laws, wars and people's right to happiness.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able 3-D image: "The VP8 Image Analyzer was produced by Pete Schumacher of Interpretations Systems Incorporated and was delivered by him to John Jackson and Eric Jumper in Colorado Springs in 1976. It showed the Shroud image has properties that, when processed through this analog computer, yield a 3-dimensional image. Rather than being like a photographic negative, the shroud image unexpectedly has the property of decoding into a 3-dimensional image of the man..."

[@SankofaNYC]

*DING DING DING!!!!* You Win Sir!! EXACTLY!! Great Post..

[@Xonatron]

"they are both without data"... very accurate.

[@1kdtaylor]

I agree with what you state in the first paragraph. The soundness of mathematics remains unproven. As to the second paragraph, I do not see how using science to prove mathematics does anything other than argue in a circle. Any time science appears to prove mathematics, the purported "proof" is founded upon mathematics itself.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able The standard is called deduction, and it is part of the scientific method: Induction and deduction. Often times, as with particle physics, the deductive route is taken. The singularity, the event that caused the big bang, which is by definition supernatural, outside our understanding, observation, laws etc, is hypothesized to have happened not by induction, because we can not observe it, measure it etc, but via deduction.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able Im going take a break for the holiday weekend, so I'll get back to your points monday. Its been a fun discussion so far. Happy holidays

[@GenghisVern]

I would disagree here, not regarding atheism but in regard to the phrase "secular fundamentalism"... There certainly are these people in the area of politics. They're the "Paulbots", the "Anarcho-capitalists", these "voluntaryists" and "objectivists" who claim to be moral fundamentalists but don't tie their beliefs to a deity. They are just as difficult to reason with as religious fundamentalists.

[@1kdtaylor]

Some unprovable tenets of Positivism include: 1.) The soundness of mathematics (science PRESUPPOSES the soundness of mathematics, so that using science to prove the soundness of mathematics is to exercise circular reasoning). 2.) Metaphysical realities (e.g. that other personalities exist outside of oneself). 3.) Objective moral truths (e.g. rape is unethical). 4.) Aesthetic truths (e.g. the "golden ratio") 5.) The soundness of science (e.g. we ASSUME that the speed of light is constant).

[@TravisMorien]

"The speed of light isn't constant; light can be slowed in the right environment as was done in an experiment a few years ago. Did you mean the maximum speed of light can't be broken?" The speed of light varies depending on what substance it is travelling through, that is the basis of refraction. Want to lower the speed of light, use a dense glass instead of air or a vacuum. Modern physics however does maintain that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and is the fastest possible speed.

[@Aurelius27x]

@yusufulhas I didn't say they didn't adopt monotheism later on... I'm saying their polytheism existed first and foremost and was quite the trend in ancient religion. I'm noting how this is further proof of the mythos surrounding deities as metaphor, not literal gods/goddesses.

[@DataSe7en]

I can't decide who i like to hear speak/debate more...Dawkins or Harris. Harris delivers with a thorough well thought out argument, often with a great use of analogies. Harris is always respectful, even to ignorance. Dawkins strength comes from his understanding of science, and his ability to translate that information to the average listener. Dawkins doesnt pull punches when evidence is flat out ignored. Tough choice..... if ne1 reads this you should respond with who you like.

[@BigG99]

the problem is that a lady in the states was able to slow down light with simple cold temperatures..... light then may in fact be altered based on its environment.

[@Chuichupachichi]

Also, making it even more significant, is the historical fact that those who were the rulers of the dominant, "great civilizations", Babylon, Egypt, Greece & Rome, also revered the same Pagan gods that today's global rulers revere. That pantheon of Pagan gods which was commonly shared by the great civilizations, was not fabricated from mans imagination. The Pagan gods are the Anunnaki & the events regarding them are accounted for within the Sumerian record The world's "shadow" rulers control

[@BjornPalmen]

Chuicgupachichi wrote: "I said, Everyone "WHO IS REASONABLE" agrees." What you actually said was: "Everyone who is reasonable agrees that man is limited in his powers & abilities." But what you should have said is: Everyone who is limited agrees that man is limited in his powers & abilities.

[@Mncdk]

I had always considered tarot cards to be pure BS, which was all about scamming people, but I had never considered the (maybe accidentally) values of being confronted with generalities to force self reflection. I love Sam Harris. He always makes me think. :)

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able the special part is that the image on the shroud is only 1/100th the width of a human hair, existing only on the outermost top layer of the fibers. Any other biological organism in decomposition releases various chemicals that seep through the fibers. The same with paint etc. Meaning that the image was formed from a biological organism, in a way currently unobserved by any other biological organism.

[@HiAdrian]

Usually when there's talk of slowing light down, this refers to the overall speed within a medium, but not the individual photons. So C stays constant, but experiences delays like a train stopping at very station on the way.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able you are correct. You have been very open minded and willing to objectively look into the science behind this issue. You have been the only one. I have a gmail account full of insults, and I guess I did displace some of my irritation your way. And the problem with proving something divine, is that is not possible to empirically prove this. Because this would be outside of our current laws. Just like the event, the singularity that caused the big bang, can't be measured.

[@jns124able]

@Dragon0007 very cool of you for the heads up tho =)

[@1kdtaylor]

On the matter of the speed of light, Einstein's special theory of relativity absolutely insists that the speed of light is constant (specifically, in a vacuum). As the American Museum of Natural History summarizes it: "Einstein's crucial breakthrough about the nature of light, made in 1905, can be summed up in a deceptively simple statement: The speed of light is constant."

[@GodTheHypothesis]

@marchingscout14 Absolutely. Although if you rely on faith, you should not expect other people to respect your beliefs or not criticise them. Nor should you expect society to priveledge your particular faith in any significant way.

[@bobby666x]

In so many ways, the argument can be reduced to this: One believes in God as fact, so they purpose, "Okay, prove me wrong." The other says, "Well I think the burden of proof lies with the believer." My stance is, "I don't think I need God or religion to be, or not be there for me to live my life as I do. I tolerate religion (to a degree), but I don't really fit the definition of atheist or even agnostic. I've accepted, "no answer," as the scientific conclusion.

[@mutabrev]

The reason we don't worship Baal today for instance, is because Elijah cut his prophets up into little pieces after YHVH demonstrated his power in front of their eyes. Have a look on google earth in central Syria for whats left of the temples of Baal.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able forensics: "In 2001, Pierluigi Baima Bollone, a professor of forensic medicine in Turin, stated that the forensic examination of the wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud indicate that the image was that of the dead body of a man who was whipped, wounded around the head by a pointed instrument and nailed at the extremities before dying..."

[@jns124able]

@tsantini13 we are inmpressed by the studies themselves and the strength of those studies by design, sample size, reliabability, reproducibility and so forth. 1. whats your educational background that would let me know how I should approach the topic with you. (are you a chemist? a doctor? etc) 2. What sources do you use for your research? Peer reviewed? not? 3. On what basis do you (meemingly prematurely) conclude the shroud is somehow authentic? How does it proove christianity, if at all?

[@HiAdrian]

I was trying to say that the speed of light remains a workable constant, despite such experiments as the one you mentioned.

[@jns124able]

@powereddrive You missed the point, that doesnt make the post pointless. Even if we are working with the same evidence...some know how to scrutinize evidence and draw appropriate conclusions better than others.

[@1kdtaylor]

Of course, I am not necessarily defending any of the 5 tenets I have above listed. I merely call attention to them as unprovable tenets held as self-evident truths by Positivists. These 5 precepts (and others) are a part of what we may call the Atheist's Creed. And as The Atheist's Bible states, "science is a belief system, as much as any other . . . [and] believers in science can be as dogmatic and faithful to their beliefs as some religions and religious believers are to theirs." (p. 41)

[@sikwee]

kissmeamerica is right we should support this bloke.

[@Chuichupachichi]

Cards are cards... but Pagan gods are something different from cards. The Pagan gods may be in disrepute with Sam Harris. However, we know from Bohemian Grove & from other things that they're not in disrepute with the powerful rulers of the world. They being the rulers of the world, makes their view of Pagan gods much more significant than is Sam Harris' view of the Pagan gods.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able If the shroud is 2000 years old, that would be the final piece, to come to the reasonable conclusion that the Shroud is Jesus. Then, we see the details of the Shroud to be in perfect sync with all four Gospel accounts of the Passion. This would provide tremendous support for the accuracy of the Gospels. Then, we know the Shroud defies traditional science, and the gospel accounts infer that traditional science was in fact defied at the very moment in time that the Shroud represents.

[@Chuichupachichi]

Everyone who is reasonable agrees that man is limited in his powers & abilities. By extension, everyone who is reasonable agrees that any thing created by man is also limited in its powers & abilities Although its a fantastic tool, science is nevertheless, limited in its applicability. Precisely as one should expect being its a product of limited man However, the materialist, naturalist subscribes to the view that the entire extent of reality or the whole of existence is determined by the

[@MrMattias87]

Well I agree with him so far, except the idea of the tarot isn't really magic. It's another system of intuitive reading.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able Textile accounts: "The weaving pattern, 3:1 twill, is consistent with first-century Syrian design, according to the appraisal of Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium. Flury-Lemberg stated, "The linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which would speak against its origin as a high-quality product of the textile workers of the first century."

[@TravisMorien]

@OctoBox They're not useless, chemistry and biology in particular are subjects of huge economic importance. Astronomy, well that's the study of everything outside of the Earth's atmosphere, which is pretty much everything. Ensuring that people know a little something about the universe ought to be one of the goals of education, not only because it's interesting but also because it helps us understand our planet in context. You wouldn't happen to be into multi-level marketing would you?

[@HardestManInTarot]

Described the Tarot better than I could.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able You are correct that deduction does not always indicate an empirical proof. But it creates a strong argument: A house is burglarized, but there are no signs of forced entry anywhere on the house. A detective then argues that someone had a key. This doesn't prove it was done with a key, but it currently is the best theory. And if further investigation shows less and less evidence for forced entry, then the key theory is strengthened, not proven. This is where the shroud is at imo.

[@TravisMorien]

@bsimpson505 I'm getting this mental image of that scene from Life of Brian, only this time it's Dawkins at a podium... Dawkins: "There's not one of us who would not gladly accept the God Hypothesis were we presented with sufficient evidence." Then a faint voice from the back: "Uh, well one!" Dawkins (looks up into audience): "Oh yeah, there's one. But otherwise we're solid!"

[@rebornstillborn]

I agree with you, but my understanding of what Harris said was that there is no such attitude connected to secularism/atheism in and of itself. Like you have illustrated however it is quite possible for people who are secularists/atheists to form absolute moral values based on some notion or other and take these to a fundamentalist degree!

[@StillLateToTheParty]

Hey, Haris! Don't talk down on Zeus!! HE'S REAL, buddy!!

[@tsantini13]

@xcellken1 the shroud was mentioned before the 14th century, in the gospels mark, matt, luke and john, dating back from 60-90 AD. also mentioned in madessa 4th century, called the mandillion cloth etc...

[@DLFfitness1]

Magical thinking is belief in magic. It’s claiming to have abilities, and knowledge that no one has.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able yes, you are a very intelligent critical thinker, and the only person who actually read any of the papers. That says a lot.

[@BigG99]

oh ok.. well with that i agree.. the question is, when it comes to reading the speed of light in space, like from a star or such in order to understand distance and time, is it possible that our messurments coule be wrong.. some conditions in space are quite extreme such as temperature and may indeed alter the speed of light.. perhaps.. its a theory that some scientists ar exploring.

[@Rockwells420]

We have to remember that these beliefs start at child birth. That's a discussion we should have. Maybe this should wait until a child's old enough to decide for themselves.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able My argument is that the Shroud can be proven to be the burial cloth of Jesus (not a resurrection), because this can be measured. Ray Rogers believed in the end of his life that the Shroud was the burial cloth of the historic man named Jesus, but he thought that a natural explanation would be found. So far, every opportunity to explain the image by means of a natural explanation has failed. This does not prove that something unnatural happened, but it opens the door to that hypothesis

[@jns124able]

@tsantini13 incidentally, I m enjoying the discussion! Although I think Im right, I enjoy that we can articulate point-counterpoints reasonably well. =D

[@jns124able]

@powereddrive since always. as per usual, when one of you guys doesnt understand whats being explained you assume the person is wrong...science is a process for explaining and understanding the universe. Newton, explains the mechanisms of physics...those mechanisms werent invented by him...he explained mechanisms and relationships that were already there. INDIVIDUALS develop explanatory models, but the nice thing about SCIENCE it that the scientific process is not up to the individual.

[@GnosticAtheist]

@Tarantulus666 Yes. However, a large portion of religious followers insist that what is outside our reality have impact. However, that would mean it is inside our reality. If it in some way have any effect on anything in our reality, it is indeed a part of it. Any belief thus rests on the first piece of tangible evidence for such. I do not believe there will ever be such evidence, and until it is any, I will live my life based on the rules of nature.

[@justgivemethetruth]

I think the understanding is almost less of a problem than absorbing that information and understanding really - what the hell we are as "beings". We all have so many foolish notions that have snuck into our brains by religion, or school even, or movies. It's amazing how no human society has really ever saved itself from serious collapse, and the way we are handling the environment and climate change we are still behaving on the macro level like an ant hill, we are not using our brains at all.

[@raspberrymuffin]

@fuck192ass The argument is technically secularism is the belief of separation of church & state but also freedom of religion and nothing more. The secularism that you speak of is a new (& not the original) definition of secularism, which is where my mix-up came from. So I'll admit that. We were thinking of two different definitions. Technically, secularism means freedom of religion, but also freedom to it. However, a new "secularism" is growing, which is anti-theism, what you meant.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able I explained my scientific perspective: the shroud is likely the burial cloth of Jesus, the mechanism of image formation in unknown, more study should be conducted. This is the conclusion of many scientists with no "vested" interest. The argument for divinity is one of deduction, the only way you can predict something that you can not observe. This is common is physics. Do you think there is evidence for higher dimensions? Do you know how many scientists believe they exist?

[@qaplatlhinganmaH]

Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel

[@TravisMorien]

@OctoBox Today's pragmatic, useful engineers are using yesterday's whimsical pure science. Quantum mech may seem to have no applicability in "real life" except that it's the key to understanding chemistry at a fundamental level, how electricity flows through computer chips etc. Relativity seems a bit out there with all of its talk of time dilation and the like, but GPS actually needs that stuff to work. Your "pragmatic" vs "junk" distinction doesn't exist in "reality".

[@GnosticAtheist]

Well, thats what religion tries to do, at differing levels. That is, insert a "theory of everything" by inserting non-empirical magic into the equation. I think I will stick to "I don't think so" and "I don't care if all you got is because" when in dialog with religion.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able The rigidly skeptical perspective is good up to point. But skepticism does not explain anything in and of itself. It is not enough to just be critical, if there is no alternative explanation proposed. I see a lot of very smug skeptics who are good at giving the definition of a skeptic, but I rarely does anyone have an alternative hypothesis or theory to present about the shroud. Because every attempt has already been refuted. Thinking outside the box is not the skeptics strength.

[@kaichrono]

I forgot the question.

[@TravisMorien]

Atheists are quite open to the possibility that some day there could be some evidence that God exists. But the problem is, there is no evidence for God. Nothing that stands up to any kind of mild scepticism that is (i.e. only things which are impressive only to faithful people who are willing to think a pattern on a piece of cheese toast is really Jesus...). But you have it completely around the wrong way. It isn't up to the atheist to disprove god, it is up to the believer to prove God.

[@BigG99]

And what point are you trying to make with this? im respectfully asking.

[@nolielhaven]

We are all similiar because we are all related genetically to each other. All humans belong to one great family, and invoking morals or codes or attempt to make up rules that pitches one side of that family against the other just to prove a point or try to make them believe in something is wrong. It is really as simple as that :)

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able Divinity can not be falsified because that is subjective, depending on interpretations based on religion. What may be seen as divine by some, may be seen as evil by another etc. However, a singularity, a circumvention of natural law in a tomb in Jerusalem can be falsified. So far it has not. And a singularity just because it is confounding, does not mean it can't be applied. After all the scientific community is confounded by the Shroud itself.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able From a strictly scientific perspective I can only say this: The Shroud is likely the burial cloth of the historical Jesus, and the mechanism for image formation is unknown, and more study should be conducted. From a Christian perspective I can say this: The Shroud image concerns a man who is divine, and therefore scientific study will never be able to fully understand the Shroud. And as science falsifies theory after theory, there the one perspective reinforces the other.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able Most Christians do not know much about the Shroud. You know more now than most Christians. Their faith does not rely on a cloth, so its not really a vested interest. Most Christians could care less. My point was originally, based on what sam harris said in the video, putting Zues, Posieden spaghetti monsters and Jesus in the same category. My point is they are very different, there is argument for Jesus, a theory can be submitted based on evidence, historical and archeological

[@tsantini13]

@xcellken1 the burial cloth the women find in the empty tomb, stated in all four gospels, is the shroud. It would not say "Turin" because Turin Italy did not exist in the first century, the mandillion cloth is the name given to the shroud in madessa,

[@fatgirl]

I'm not saying this too be critical of Sam Harris, but I think he could have saved a lot of time by simply pointing out that religion has value primarily in its parables, and little value elsewhere.

[@Tarantulus666]

@TravisMorien it is a tenet of rationality that the burden of proof is upon the claimant. if you claim something exists it is up to you to prove it, not up to the skeptic to disprove it.

[@jns124able]

@tsantini13 religious divinity CANNOT be falsified. When evidence contrary to religious doctrine emeges, religion falls back on an alternative interpretation of holy books. You are right about xtians interpreting an abrogation of natural law as evidence of jesus. I suppose magnetism would have fallen under this category a few decades back..point is, even the appearance of supernatural (as magnetism had) may be, with time and effort, explained by natural processes.

[@jns124able]

@del4830 I would call into question, not only your beliefs, but your ability (or process) to evaluate what actually constitutes reasonable quality evidence/support/proof. I do that respectfully of course, but I still do it. You should make more of an effort to separate your assessment of information from your hopes for what the information could mean..

[@jns124able]

@tsantini13 THAT...is simply not something that makes sense in light of the statment you made earlier that it cannot be proven definitively. Correct me if I do you wrong in putting it that way. Skeptical inquiry is what allows us to progress in knowledge. As I have said in all honesty...if I saw compelling evidence I would in fact be compelled to alter my position based on it. If you make a magnificent claim, your evidence better be as such...and it isnt at this point.

[@davepcc]

I can respect Harris' opinion as a Christian in a debate, but that probably because I am an "evolutionist." If you search his videos online, he does get derogatory.

[@BjornPalmen]

@BigG99 Lenses work because light travels slower in glass.

[@TravisMorien]

@OctoBox "Show me ONE innovation created by a thoeretical physicist " Do you mean can I name one theoretical physicist who has invented a practical device you're likely to have heard of? Well the word "theoretical" kinda rules out that he *personally* would have made the device, but you already named one notable field yourself... nuclear physics was once entirely theoretical, Einstein wasn't an experimentalist, in fact he worked out relativity by imagining travelling on a light beam.

[@havabighed]

But if atheists claim that Christians are "Christian Fundamentalists" by their same reasoning, Christians have a right to call secular atheists... Atheist fundamentalists. And he is wrong, you have to fundamentally accept the dogma of naturalist thought.

[@marchingscout14]

@TravisMorien do you not convince yourself there isn't a God though? But the believer is a believer because he believes right? Belief comes from faith and if you don't have any of it or simply refuse to even consider the existence of God, you aren't one. So ultimately, it isn't up to the believer to prove God, it's up to the believer to have faith and believe.

[@Aurelius27x]

@yusufulhas The funny thing is there is not one of the precursors to these religions that didnt first adopt a polytheistic view. There was no such thing as monotheism in the truly ancient cultures. Not even the jews.

[@jns124able]

@tsantini13 well, as I said earlier...I think trying to draw parallels between a singularity and the shroud's divine origins is extremely dubious to the point that it is completely invalid. A lack of an explanation for any one of the millions of things that science hasnt explained thus far does not preclude magical thinking as valid. You are misusing science in this way. Ive said this before, but I dont think you would agree.

[@raspberrymuffin]

@fuck192ass Harris is talking about how people try to make secularism itself a form of fundamentalism. If someone tries to destroy religion, that doesn't make secularism fundamentalist, the hate for religion is its own separate fundamentalism. My comment is to say one is fundamentalist if they are secular is an oxymoron, because secularism is a lack of belief. You're right that attempting to destroy religion is fundamentalist, but that's a different argument from what Harris (& I) are saying.

[@jns124able]

@tsantini13 not being able to explain it, is not dropping the ball. There are millions of things science cannot explain or disprove. With regards to your research...what is your educational background? Or do you mean youve read a few select articles that refer to the textiles, art, photography etc etc etc...? Careful not to misrepresent yourself and what youve actually accpomplished. Some of us have extensive educational backgrounds and are not necessarily impressed by claims of study..cont

[@kaoscstr]

I am atheist, and I agree with your comment

[@Chuichupachichi]

@BjornPalmen {Btw "everyone agrees that" is a typical claim for really weak theories} Straw Men are typical within extremely weak Evolutionist arguments I said, Everyone "WHO IS REASONABLE" agrees. That would of course, exclude evolutionists Never in the history of mankind, have things like "4 legged whales", "Tyrannosaurus Chicken" & "Ancestral Bacterial Forebearers" ever been considered "reasonable"

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able Not magic. I would not use the term magic concerning the Shroud, the same way I would not use the term magic to describe the phenomenon of dark energy. I understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I would argue the Shroud of Turin is an extraordinary phenomenon. What this implies relies on the interpretation of the observer. And I do think that a tremendous amount of skepticism has been applied to the Shroud, but they lack peer review.

[@Chuichupachichi]

all major sources of information, i.e. the schools from 1st grade to PhD & the major media corporations which are part of the corporate oligarchy. In addition, they are the authors of many of the political ideologies that are major components of the US & western civilization's culture. The fact is that throughout history & at present, the significant, relevant struggles between the prominent opposing forces & the power of ruling, have been between the Pagans with their religious system & the

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able Science follows the Shroud very closely. Every new finding gets published in peer review journals. Science is at the point where they have thrown a lot at the Shroud, and have come up empty. The scientific study of the shroud has favored the Christian perspective, and I think that bothers a lot of people. If you don't believe me, follow the "skeptic" websites and media stories concerning the shroud. You will also find vested interests. It's why i credit you for actually researching

[@tsantini13]

@xcellken1 no the STURP team who published piles of peer reviewed papers on the subject. Peer reviewed science is the distinction here. If you understand what that is, then you will understand why the shroud of turin is different from big foot and ufos.

[@TravisMorien]

@Tarantulus666 Are you sure you meant to direct that comment at me, and not one of the people making positive claims about something? My assertion was only that atheists (ok, most atheists) are open to evidence, but there is no evidence for God, therefore no reason for someone who requires evidence to form a belief to believe in God. A couple of guys responded that they in fact were closed to such evidence and would not accept it even if it existed. I can't understand that viewpoint though.

[@jns124able]

@tsantini13 There’s a lot of science behind the debate that the dating is flawed, but the conclusion that it is produced by magical causes is unfounded. It appears to be a case of some sound science used to make an unfounded conclusion. Am I to be impressed with the science behind the articles to the point I miss that the conclusion at the end is without any merit? At best, you may say the dating may be flawed, but xtians still have all their work ahead of them in supporting its divinity.

[@jns124able]

@tsantini13 In your examples of 10 murder suspects and particle physics...the deduction assumes or otherwise knows that the deduced option is plausible. (ie you KNEW the killer was in the room) You do not have this luxury in the real world example of your shroud. It is the equivalent of having 10 suspects in the room but not knowing IF one of them actually is the killer. You may want to believe that one is, but you cant know and this is the discussion we are having re: your shroud.

[@tsantini13]

@jns124able Dropping the ball concerns the carbon dating. The carbon dating does not deal with the mechanism for image formation. Concerning the C-14 dating, science dropped the ball. From chemist Ray Rogers: "If they had looked at the ultra-violet pictures we had taken of the Shroud, they would have known that that was the worst place to cut for sampling." Anyway you spin it, that's a big fkn wiff. Forget my conclusions, read only the PEER REVIEWED articles on the Shroud. As I have.

[@tsantini13]

@xcellken1 there is no way to verify any alleged true cross. however, there are ways to test the shroud of turin for methods of forgery. No method of forgery exists. The shroud of turin has not been explained by traditional science. You need to understand why the shroud of turin is the most studied artifact in human history, and why science cannot explain it. to understand this, you need to do the research. you seem to have a media related perception of the shroud, follow the science instead

[@jns124able]

this is starting to become less mysterious to me. I am seeing a pattern of usage of scientific terminology and the way in which you apply it and express yourself. You seem to become a bit confused with semantics. I say confused because the alternative is a deliberate misuse of semantics. By "terrible standard" the word standard isnt being used the way you are using it when you describe deduction. In any event, the main issue id have is with your application of "deduction".