Italian group claims to debunk Shroud of Turin

Interesting report on the activities of the Italian Committee for Checking Claims on the Paranormal. Having obtained its results on the Shroud, the Committee now turns its attention to claims of visitations of St. Willie the Outfielder.

about 1 month ago 2X2L 12 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I believe

casting doubt upon a treasured relic of Christianity will be far easier than convincing Trey & Dayton that St. Willie is not indispensable to the Royals.

by hunter s. royal on Oct 5, 2009 6:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

“They won’t give up,” [a professor of chemistry at the University of Pavia] said. “Those who believe in it will continue to believe.”

by 2X2L on Oct 5, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's all part of the process

Just believing in it will make it work, just like pitching further into games, and hitting with out fear.

Sponsor of the Will Ebner Physical Therapy Center for Players Who've Been Hit By Will Ebner and Want to Try to Stop the Ringing. Or WEPTCPWBHBWEWTSR for short.

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Oct 5, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That cloth has been debunked many times in many ways by many people

But I guess some/many Catholics just don’t want to give up on it. Just like faith in god, it’s not about proof or logic. Let people believe in the Shroud of Turin, the Easter Bunny and clutch hitting. Facts won’t move them.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Oct 5, 2009 8:22 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Are you questioning the Easter Bunny?

by BrRoyal on Oct 6, 2009 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This way there is balance:

I put the sarcastic post first.

As far as the Shroud of Turin goes, who cares? If it helps people grow in their relationships to God, I don’t care what they think of the piece of cloth. But I’m worried that you seem to have said that there is proof that God does not exist. How can anything prove that?

by BrRoyal on Oct 6, 2009 8:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it’s telling that there is no Italian Committee for Checking the Existence of Divinity.

What we very definitely have, at least informally, is an Internet Committee for Checking the Suitability of Willie Bloomquist for Playing the Outfield, which has plenty of data now on hand for its purposes, and its findings repeatedly and sometimes vociferously published are summarized as follows: “Use sparingly and with caution.”

And that’s as far as my expertise on these subject allows me to speak.

by 2X2L on Oct 6, 2009 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your eyes will tell you what you need to know--fuck the facts.

by Steve Hovley on Oct 5, 2009 10:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Next up

Telling all the world’s children there is no Santa Claus.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Oct 7, 2009 9:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

this is a typical rejoinder

The group said in a statement this is further evidence the shroud is a medieval forgery. In 1988, scientists used radiocarbon dating to determine it was made in the 13th or 14th century.

But the dispute continued because experts couldn’t explain how the faint brown discoloration was produced, imprinting on the cloth a negative image centuries before the invention of photography.

Since the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century, it doesn’t matter how the image was formed. Just because you can’t explain that, it doesn’t mean that it could be authentic. The age discounts the popular interpretation. Throwing up side issues that aren’t fully understood now is a way of trying to sidetrack the fundamental point.

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Oct 8, 2009 1:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The response at that time went directly to the radiocarbon dating also. I think the suggestion was that the dating was unreliable due to particles of stuff that settled into it in one or more medieval fires.

But as you say a response of that sort isn’t required to be compelling to folks who haven’t made up their minds; its purpose is only to protect the plausibility of a preferred belief or interpretation, typically in the face of contrary evidence.

Example: I want to believe that Willie Bloomquist is an asset to the offense (in part because I want to believe that at least one of the offseason acquisitions was a success), so I make a big deal out of his occasional ability to get two or three hits in a game.

by 2X2L on Oct 8, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs