is "The Shroud of Turin" for real?

@OldGrumpy,

OldGrumpy wrote:

wait a minute. what large group? who are they?

They are called Christians.

OldGrumpy wrote:

And how did you know they followed who?

The name of their leader is at the core of their doctrine.

OldGrumpy wrote:

And following someone isn't any proof of the existence of someone of course. They might follow a fantasy.

People tend to follow actual leaders. They don't tend to follow nonexistent leaders.

OldGrumpy wrote:

As people do who still follow a non-existent 'jesus'. So that is no proof at all.

That is incorrect. The existence of followers is proof of a leader.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

OldGrumpy wrote:

I smell insanity here. Narcism with a touch of psychopathy.

If your diagnosis is correct, you'll have no problem finding facts that I am wrong about. Good luck.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The fact that I am correct nearly 100% of the time proves that I am the source of what I say. My extreme intelligence and vast knowledge is the only possible source of such a track record.

That's hilarious. If egotism were cash, you'd be the richest man in the world.

None of what you allege here to be facts are facts. If you wish to entertain christian delusions, that no skin off my nose. Your desire to believe does not make the story factual. That bullsh*t about the shroud is not even logical, never mind factual.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

They are called Christians.

ok, thank you. that's less vague.

Quote:

The name of their leader is at the core of their doctrine.

ok, so I assume it is the never existed 'jesus'.

Quote:

People tend to follow actual leaders. They don't tend to follow nonexistent leaders.

This is circular 'logic'. Whatever they do you are sure that their 'leader'
is existent. Not the way it works, mate! so much for your non-existent 'genius'. Hilarious is more like it.

Quote:

That is incorrect. The existence of followers is proof of a leader.

Duh? Again, of course not! People are perfectly capable of following a fantasy leader. No problem at all, so that doesn't say a damned thing. No proof , nothing!

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

If your diagnosis is correct, you'll have no problem finding facts that I am wrong about. Good luck.

No problem at all, mate! But I am sure you are not able to 'see' it because you are deeply blinded by your faith. And let me be clear here, that is your right, you have every right to follow your faith. I just say what I think about it all, and personally I think it is all bullshite. It's mind control for the people. You have been conned.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That's hilarious. If egotism were cash, you'd be the richest man in the world.

I'm merely unashamed of the fact that I am smarter and more knowledgeable than everybody else.

Setanta wrote:

None of what you allege here to be facts are facts.

That is incorrect. It is a fact that the image on the Shroud of Turin is consistent with images produced by photography.

It is a fact that all other proposed methods of producing the image, produce results that do not match the Shroud of Turin.

It is a fact that the photo-negative qualities of the image on the Shroud would be unlikely to have been produced by any method other than photography.

Setanta wrote:

If you wish to entertain christian delusions, that no skin off my nose.

Science and history are not delusions.

Setanta wrote:

Your desire to believe does not make the story factual.

Scientific evidence, on the other hand, does show that it is factual.

Setanta wrote:

That bullsh*t about the shroud is not even logical, never mind factual.

That is incorrect. All of the facts that I posted are true.

My strong reliance on facts is perfectly logical.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

OldGrumpy wrote:

ok, thank you. that's less vague.

You're welcome.

OldGrumpy wrote:

ok, so I assume it is the never existed 'jesus'.

There is proof that he existed.

OldGrumpy wrote:

This is circular 'logic'.

That is incorrect. That people tend to follow actual leaders is a fact of human nature.

OldGrumpy wrote:

Whatever they do you are sure that their 'leader' is existent.

Yes. If a group exists, so does their leader.

OldGrumpy wrote:

Not the way it works, mate!

Yes it is. Groups of humans have leaders.

OldGrumpy wrote:

so much for your non-existent 'genius'. Hilarious is more like it.

My IQ is 170. Does yours break 100?

OldGrumpy wrote:

Duh? Again, of course not! People are perfectly capable of following a fantasy leader. No problem at all, so that doesn't say a damned thing. No proof , nothing!

That is incorrect. Groups of humans have leaders to lead them.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

OldGrumpy wrote:

No problem at all, mate!

We'll see.

OldGrumpy wrote:

But I am sure you are not able to 'see' it because you are deeply blinded by your faith.

I'll be able to see anything that you post, and will be able to respond to it.

OldGrumpy wrote:

And let me be clear here, that is your right, you have every right to follow your faith. I just say what I think about it all, and personally I think it is all bullshite. It's mind control for the people. You have been conned.

The scientists and historians have not conned me. They really do have evidence to back up their findings.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

You don't employ science, logic or facts. I'll waste no more time on you.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Yes I do.

Another day, another thread where nobody can point out any facts that I am wrong about. So it goes.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

My IQ is 170. Does yours break 100?

oh please! maybe mine is 12, who cares?
Is the argument sound or not, that is what matters.

You seem to missing a lot of logic and good arguments.

so much for your '170'.

and you are wrong on all points, and if you don't 'grok' that, well, n0thing will help you.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

OldGrumpy wrote:

oh please! maybe mine is 12, who cares?

I was merely responding to your post. If you do not wish to discuss my intellectual superiority, you can easily avoid the topic by not making posts about it.

If you do discuss it, however, I reserve the right to make factual rebuttals to untrue characterizations of me.

OldGrumpy wrote:

Is the argument sound or not, that is what matters.

Very true.

OldGrumpy wrote:

You seem to missing a lot of logic and good arguments.

Not at all. I've posted facts which demolish your claims.

OldGrumpy wrote:

so much for your '170'.

My superior intelligence and knowledge is likely a contributing factor in my ability to post facts that demolish your position.

OldGrumpy wrote:

and you are wrong on all points,

That is incorrect. The existence of followers is proof of a leader. And the Shroud of Turin is consistent with photography and not consistent with any other method of manufacture.

OldGrumpy wrote:

and if you don't 'grok' that, well, n0thing will help you.

I don't need any help. I have facts and reality.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

You are wrong about that photograph bullsh*t, you just won't admit it.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You are wrong about that photograph bullsh*t,

If I had been wrong about the image on the Shroud being consistent with photography, you would be able to point out a manner in which it was not consistent with an image produced by photography.

However, you cannot point out any way in which the Shroud is inconsistent with an image produced by photography. And that is because, as usual, everything that I say is completely correct.

If I had been wrong about all other proposed methods of creating the image producing results that are inconsistent with the Shroud, you would be able to point out an alternate method that produces results that are consistent with the Shroud.

However, you cannot point out any such alternate method. And that is because, as usual, everything that I say is completely correct.

If I had been wrong about photography being the only plausible way that someone in 1300 could produce a negative image that would produce a detailed positive image when reversed five centuries later, you would be able to point out an alternate way that someone in 1300 could produce such a negative image.

However, you cannot point out any alternate way for someone in 1300 to produce such a negative image. And that is because, as usual, everything that I say is completely correct.

Setanta wrote:

you just won't admit it.

Given that I am once again completely correct in every respect. It is reasonable for me to deny that I am wrong in any way.

If you want someone to admit that they are wrong, you're going to have to find someone who is actually wrong. It won't be me.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Nonsense; people who make claims have the burden of proving their claims, no one is obliged to disprove them. You offered no scientific evidence, no logical basis for believing the claim, and you presented no facts. This is consistent with your past performance here. In fact, you introduced your claim with "A good case could be made," or words very close to that (I'll not waste my time hunting up your post). That shows, right there, that you were not dealing in fact but in speculation. Now you're trotting out your egotistical "I'm never wrong" bullsh*t. That's par for the course.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Nonsense; people who make claims have the burden of proving their claims, no one is obliged to disprove them.

That is incorrect. People who wish to make an outright claim that something is untrue also have a burden to back up their claim.

Setanta wrote:

You offered no scientific evidence, no logical basis for believing the claim, and you presented no facts.

I presented the fact that there are no inconsistencies between the image on the Shroud and an image produced by photography.

I presented the fact that there are no other proposed methods of producing the image that produce results that are consistent with the Shroud.

I presented the fact that it is extremely unlikely that there is any way other than photography for someone in 1300 to produce a negative image that would produce such a detailed positive image when reversed five centuries later.

Setanta wrote:

In fact, you introduced your claim with "A good case could be made," or words very close to that (I'll not waste my time hunting up your post). That shows, right there, that you were not dealing in fact but in speculation.

That the image was produced by photography is speculation.

You may recall that you made an erroneous statement that there are no facts to back up this speculation.

That there are no inconsistencies between the image and photography is a fact.

That all other proposed methods of creation produce inconsistencies is a fact.

That there is no other plausible way for someone in 1300 to produce a negative image that will produce such a detailed positive image when reversed is a fact.

Setanta wrote:

Now you're trotting out your egotistical "I'm never wrong" bullsh*t. That's par for the course.

When I am confronted with untrue claims that I am wrong, it is reasonable for me to counter by pointing out the reality that I am completely correct.

0 Replies

Bullsh*t . . . which is about 99.9% of what you post here. People who make claims have the burden of proving them--and you haven't. No one is obliged to disprove them.

Here's a little song for/about you.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Bullsh*t . . . which is about 99.9% of what you post here.

Strange how no one can ever cite these instances of me being wrong.

Setanta wrote:

People who make claims have the burden of proving them--and you haven't. No one is obliged to disprove them.

If someone wishes to state that something is definitively untrue (as you have done repeatedly in this thread), that itself is a claim. And as such, it carries its own burden of proof.

So far I've offered a sound argument in support for my claim. You've offered nothing at all in support for your claim.

Setanta wrote:

Here's a little song for/about you.

The singer sounds frustrated that the subject of the song has all of their facts straight.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You have offered no such sound argument. As a result, all I've said is that I don't believe it. As a claim, I can assure you that I don't believe it. Once again, your bullsh*t is completely fact free.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You have offered no such sound argument.

I've pointed out that there are no inconsistencies between an image produced by photography and the image on the Shroud.

I've pointed out that none of the other proposed methods of producing the image on the Shroud, actually produce results consistent with the image on the Shroud.

I've pointed out that there is no other plausible way for someone in 1300 to produce a negative image that would result in such a detailed positive image when reversed some five centuries later.

Setanta wrote:

As a result, all I've said is that I don't believe it.

That is incorrect. You've offered a number of statements claiming that it is definitively not true.

As one example, just a few posts up you said:
"You are wrong about that photograph bullsh*t, you just won't admit it."

Setanta wrote:

As a claim, I can assure you that I don't believe it.

How else could someone in 1300 produce a pigment-free negative image that produces a detailed positive image when reversed 500 years later?

Setanta wrote:

Once again, your bullsh*t is completely fact free.

Reality is hardly BS.

As for facts, I have the fact that the results of photography are similar to the image on the Shroud. I have the fact that all other proposed methods of producing the image, produce results that do not match the image. And I have the fact that there is no other plausible way for someone in 1300 to produce a negative image that would result in such detail when reversed some five centuries later.

0 Replies

is "The Shroud of Turin" for real?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know