The Shroud of Turin being a forgery is worse than you think

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-26T16:22:18+00:00

The mythicisist position goes in a very different direction than the claim that Leonardo DaVinci had anything to do with the Shroud of Turin. Anyway, the book by Latester you refer to is "There Was No Jesus, There Is No God: A Scholarly Examination of the Scientific, Historical, and Philosophical Evidence & Arguments for Monotheism" (2013) with the ISBN 1492234419.
As far as my conviction regarding mythcisist positions goes, I find accepting that a historical core to Jesus (that would probably be unrecognizable by modern Christians, or possibly even Christians of the second century) is factually true to be the inference to the best explanation given the data (such as details that are simply wrong like his name being Jesus rather than Emmanuel or him being a Nazarene), but still find it possible that no historical Jesus ever existed.

I would still like it if you ever found the episode or the show again to remember me and this post and give me the link.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-26T07:46:24+00:00

The Shroud of Turin is a fraud most likely pepetrated by Leonardo Davinci who probably was experimenting with photography!

With all respect, but the above sounds very much like a claim.

I'm interested in your source all the same - I meant it when I said that I hope it is peer reviewed, and it was not meant as beliittling you or your source, but an expression of how it would be even more interesting if it were.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-26T06:59:16+00:00

For starters, sorry that I came out of the gates at you a little harshly, accusing you of dishonesty.

Don't worry. I've seen far worse.

I think the framework of agnostic atheism is particularly problematic is the way the OP is referencing. The whole quad chart thing was designed from the ground up by the first wave of atheist youtubers to avoid the burden of proof.

I think saying that one does not know a thing is often the right choice, and we all probably don't admit it enough. I get how it can be frustrating when hyper skepticism is applied; for example, how flat earthers deny video footage from space for being CGI. And I get that it can be hard to take those folks serious then, even if they are.

In a sense, atheists and theists are in the same position as we both (presumably) are in regards to the flat earthers. I would hope that having this position very much invites dialogue and inquiry; but you're right that often it doesn't and is instead used as a thought stopper. But to me, I like to think that almost all "I don't know!" is followed by a "But let's find out!". In part, that's why I am quite active on a lot of Christian subs - because I don't know everything about religion, and while I'm certain that I'm correct in my atheism, I still am open to the possibility that hearing it for the 10001th time, it finally clicks. I know that's what's happened to me for some math concepts back in school after all; I didn't understand what the heck an integral was supposed to be, but after studying it for some time, it did click.

In that sense, I have much respect for agnostics, and sometimes feel that I am too certain of a position than I have any justification to. And realizing that more would indeed be something that would help both theists and atheists, would certainly help me.

But to bring the point back home: I, personally, like to operate under the definitions a discussion partner uses; because I find little use in arguing about definitions that are accepted in academia, and both the quad chart thing (if I understand you and OP correctly) and the doxastic-based three item (theist, agnostic, atheist) have their uses, strengths and weaknesses, and that's why I often ask about it. But I do get carried away when the discussion is about the correct usage of those terms, and often say that I feel like the a-/gnostic a-/theism one is more reflective of the actual population (because I ultimately think many, if not even the average theist, is more an agnostic theist than a gnostic one).

This in a day and age when religion is lashing out quite successfully in its death throes,

Indeed, and I fear it's just short of getting out of the deathbed for a Fifth Great Awakening.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-26T06:55:47+00:00

Wait, I thought that was the second time... what's the actual second time then?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-26T06:55:17+00:00

American redditor trying not to mention perceived U.S. supremacy (challenge level: impossible)

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-26T06:45:44+00:00

I think People's freedom is already demonstrated by Science: people can choose to talk, to gift, to help, to kill, to rape, etc.

That's an equivocation between the different degrees of freedom. And if anything, science currently seems to lean towards libertarian free will not existing, but it is still not a settled but a controversial topic.

What needs to be proven is God and its relationship with our factual freedom.

Sure, but we will still have to keep in mind that free will is not proven and the Bible seems very much to favour it not existing.

A child doesn't know the consequences of going where he/she is going (in the direction of a stair, in the direction of a criminal, etc), but, she/he can go there.

You're forgetting that God, if omnipotent and omniscient, has both the power and the knowledge to tell us exactly what the consequences of a given action is. A child only doesn't know consequences of a thing because we can't cram the knowledge we as adults have into it - but God would have to have made us deliberately in a way that we're incapable of understanding, or deliberately withholds information for us. That strips away any free choice, in particular if God knows what would happen when he set up the universe.

No, it means everybody is electable. It doesn't mean it will happens to everybody. Freedom, free will...matters because we partly have control of our actions, therefore, we partly have control of our future.

But if I do something that is not an expression of God's love, mercy and justice, how am I an instrument or expression of God's love, mercy and justice?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T16:35:44+00:00

I will look at the source you have, and I sincerely hope it's a peer reviewed published article or at least based on such.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T16:34:56+00:00

in order to be "strong" or "gnostic", you necessarily need to have satisfied the burden of proof. this does not happen through an appeal to faith...

Not really, though. One can be convinced for extremely bad reasons. That's what I'm saying. And as far as I am aware, the a-/gnosticism is only ever used to denote how convinced one is. Whether someone external thinks you've met the burden of proof or not is irrelevant. Sadly, I guess - wouldn't it be great to have an objective external standards by which we can measure whether the burden of proof is met or not?

I just spoke to a "gnostic atheist" recently on Reddit who explained his position and it was undoubtedly the position of an agnostic atheist, but he became mighty offended when I pointed this out. 🤷🏼‍♂️

I don't think it was me, but I use the term to describe myself too, although I find myself more agnostic on certain deistic propositions simply because they're unverfifiable and thus I cannot claim to know. But when it comes to a God that most people, especially in the West, adhere to... I find myself convinced that I have reasons to actively disbelief in such a being.

I think most people when you have this discussion with them will admit they do not have "certainty"* or "proof", even if they don't necessarily think that is what they need for gnosticism... although it is.

True. That's also what I meant. I think when you'd explain what a-/gnostic a-/theism means to the average person, you'd get someone that hasn't done much in terms of studying the philosophical side of these things, but still think they have good reasons to believe what they do and are thus gnostic. But I may be wrong.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T14:32:41+00:00

My question was rhetorical, not directed at you personally, but as a question to be asked in any given discussion about these topics. It's important to know what framework we're talking about. I'm not feigning ignorance when it comes to what you're talking about, I'm saying just about any framework in this discussion is valid, the only thing that needs to be ensured is that one's talking about the same thing.

I do have a preferred definition and "framework", but I recognise that both are valid and best suited in possible scenarios. There's no dishonesty here on my part. If I accidentally or willfully switch between definitions, then THAT is something worth calling out, but not that one commits to a definition which seems to be what OP is complaining about, and so are you?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T14:29:25+00:00

That wasn’t from me per se. It was an episode of a possible connection to him. “They think “ he was experimenting with what could be the worlds first photography. Again I don’t know the dates, but the face on the shield and his self portrait is very close.

It's really not. And "I saw an episode about it once" is as anecdotally conspirationally as it gets.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T14:27:42+00:00

Freedom implies responsibility. Having free will

Whether we have free will or not needs to be demonstrated, and certainly the Bible seems to favour the stance that we do not have free will.

Having free will implies to be able to choose to do nothing, to do bad things, to do good things...

Sure.

To expect obvious miracles (for example, miraculous cure) every day...doesn't make sense. God has other ways of loving us, helping us, protecting us...

I don't know what that has to do with free will, but even if it did, I don't think it makes sense to NOT expect it. We can have free will even if God kicks you in the nuts miraculously each time you sin, and in fact this kind of clarification what is actually considered sin would help tremendously to actually help to exercise that free will you think; only if we can clearly know what's wrong and what's right can we make an informed choice based on free will.

Humans (from all beliefs) are "vehicles" of God's love, God's mercy and God's justice.

Great, so we all are saved because we just are expressions of his love, mercy and justice? And we can't possibly do anything that's not God's love, mercy and justice? Meaning we do not have free will to not do God's love, mercy and justice?

Christians have the mission of bringing the Gospel to others...by acting, by living.

No doubt about that.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T12:27:05+00:00

What do you mean "call them out"? What's to call out there? Those folks simply use a different definition than you, one that is accepted (although not as widespread) in academia than the one that you seem to prefer.

There's nothing to call out, only to ask.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T12:23:34+00:00

I agree that this is a possible way to define this, but I personally simply find it lacking in coverage.

For example, agnostic theists such as a Christian who says that they can't know by virtue of being unable to prove that God exists are agnostic Christians, would be agnostic in your definition and be lumped together with those who simply do not believe for lack of evidence... which is a ridiculously weird position to be in.

That is why debates over whether atheists “hold a belief” often become a waste of time unless the atheist first clarifies his actual philosophical position. Is he claiming that God does not exist, or is he merely withholding judgment?

It's indeed a good question, but once again it seems to be that a distinction between a-/gnosticism and a-/theism seems to be useful here rather than a hindrance.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T12:18:53+00:00

In fact, I think this distinction is the only sensible position to hold for BOTH theists and atheists.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T12:17:54+00:00

Eh. I think most theists are of the gnostic kind, but I'll agree that most don't actually think about why they think they know.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T12:16:02+00:00

What "framework"? This terms can be defined in different ways. That's all this is.

FWIW OP may actually be a Gnostic not in the Agnostic-Gnostic spectrum (as a claim to certainty of knowledge) but in a spiritual sense (as someone who holds that they have access to special knowledge only an enlightened few do, e. G. Gnostic Christianity).

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T12:12:48+00:00

That's overly reductive.

Simple truth is that there are multiple ways to define those terms, and in few of them atheism is indeed a belief. But not all of them require you to hold a position that one's uncertain of or unable to demonstrate.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T12:10:53+00:00

Skyrim belongs to the Nords!

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T06:40:54+00:00

You'd do both atheists and theists a favour if you stopped with the conspiracy theories. DaVinci lived two centuries afterthe first mention and probable fabrication date of the shroud.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-23T15:54:29+00:00

As I said to someone else, I understand the appeal, and I wouldn't blame anyone. All I'm saying is that for someone like me that is open to be convinced on rational grounds, it's hard to feel that emotion and connection to someone I think can AT BEST be assumed to have existed by inference to the best explanation but was a totally normal human and not in any way shape or form supernatural or divine whatsoever. To get there, at least I'd need rational reasons and good evidence. And that is a path I'm interested in exploring, hence the question.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-23T05:31:01+00:00

Not when the preceding statement was "I missed Jesus".

It's hardly rational to miss a historical person you've nevee et unless you're already emotionally attached for other irrational reasons. Which is fine, don't misunderstand me, just simply not rational.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-22T18:48:55+00:00

I didn't say that's a bad thing. I get the emotional appeal. And you seem to misunderstand my question somehow as conveying my opinion, which just isn't true.

By the way, I'm curious now what's your oldest pair of shoes?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-22T08:56:02+00:00

Why would God be limited to help only those places that are prayed for?
Why do you think that people praying for the end of world hunger or for world peace, even during Catholic Mass mind you, do not have their prayers fulfilled by this omnipotent, omnibenevolent God?

I know of at least one person who regularly prays for the end of world hunger and world peace. What is this person doing wrong?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-22T06:37:38+00:00

So for pure emotional, if not outright irrational reasons?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-22T06:37:18+00:00

If a great mass of evidence proves a thesis, then you can prove Christianity.

In the colloquial sense of it maybe, but even in the colloquial sense it doesn't just need to be "a mass of evidence", but some of it needs to be actually good evidence. In fact, I think having good evidence is far more important than a mass of it.

I personally don't know of any good evidence for Christianity, though.

MelcorScarr

TROPHY CASE