It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
There are no definite historical records concerning the particular shroud currently at Turin Cathedral prior to the 14th century. A burial cloth, which some historians maintain was the Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors but disappeared during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204.[8] Although there are numerous reports of Jesus' burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the 14th century, there is no historical evidence that these refer to the shroud currently at Turin Cathedral.
So where was it all that time? In some guy's attic? Since Jesus' death it has spent approx 65% of its existence not known to man (and bizarrely that's the first 65%) then suddenly springs into existence in the Middle Ages? Sounds pretty convincing to me.
But I'm sure good old @Risico007 will show up in a minute with a video fronted by a world renowned physicist to tell us there is compellling evidence of how it slipped through a worm hole ripped in the space time fabric when Jesus ascended to heaven and only magically reappeared in Turin over 1000 years later.
Based upon the amount of foreskin in relics it is no wonder Marie Magdalena said "Öh My lord I am in heaven" ;)
I’m from York and have to admit this passed me by. Absolute gold!
Since someone started up a Blackadder thread the other day this seems rather apposite:
What is rather amusing is that this jolly little meander we've taken down Turin Shroud Lane has only come about from @Risico007 and his efforts to 'prove' that Christ rose from the dead through one of his 'scientific' videos. It just goes to show that when it comes to religion all roads lead to ridicule.
Is there any angle you can come at it from that doesn't end up with logic and reason beating religion to oblivion like the piñata full of lies and delusions it is?
Apart from giving solace to people (admittedly through self delusion) who can't face up to the reality of mortality I really do struggle to think of one positive thing religion brings to the world. Although to be fair I picked up a shitload of those Malteaster chocolate bunnies cheap from Tesco yesterday and without Jesus getting nailed up those might not exist.*
Defending religion is starting to remind me of Partridge's pitches:
Alan: 'Charitable works?'
Tony Hayers: 'There are loads of non religious charities'
Alan: 'Helping the poor?'
Hayers: 'While the Vatican sits on billions of ill gotten gains?'
Alan: 'Without religion we would have no moral framework'
Hayers: 'That's just plain bollocks'
Alan: 'Errr Talking Snake Tennis?'
*Oh bugger. Religion can't even take credit for chocolate bunnies: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism
Even if we close our eyes for a moment to how the Church has obtained its wealth, we can't escape the naked observation that it keeps clinging so proudly to its exuberant patrimony, which sticks out to all the needy like an eyesore. If the Church really is entitled to speak on behalf of God, then God's spokespersons are bathing in gold, expensive art and more while their target demographic has barely enough drinking water to stay alive. Like driving a fat Mercedes to a gathering of a labour union, the Church gives its followers the finger at all times. Meanwhile, it has the guts to still organise donation drives among you and me for the benefit of its buildings and all of its "good work".
I accept that beautiful art needs a good place to be preserved and exhibited; it might just as well happen in the Vatican. I also accept that the world wouldn't necessarily be a better place were said art auctioned off to some private collector. However, the problem I submit to you is one of image building. Jesus was supposed to be a simple man, a carpenter rather than a wealthy aristocrat. Even in pop culture, we're led to believe that he drank from the simplest of cups rather than from a golden beaker befitting a king. Yet the very institution that now, 2000 years later, defends his honour, is a baffling vault of treasures. I sincerely doubt Christ, whom according to the Bible loathed all activities with financial gain in the name of God, would appreciate the tragic fact that the financial powerhouse of the Vatican is currently representing him on this Earth.
I'll be honest, the Catholic Church is showing good effort to make progress. It's beginning to accept some of the more challenging notions of science (and by doing so it's giving Protestant Young Earth Creationists the finger too). It's apologising for past mistakes including genocide, helping to spread STD's like an epidemic, the degradation of women and gay people on a human scale and so on -- but only one slow step at a very prolonged time. And like I already said, some impressive charitable work is being set up, not in the least spurred on by its latest pope. But it's taking so much time, all of it, presumably because every single thing has to be debated in the conclave. The world is spinning faster than the Church seems willing to admit. Meanwhile, it's still sending out old-fashioned admonishments which are helpful to no-one and it's still holding on to a -- in my opinion illegal -- form of self-justice, preventing predatorial priests from receiving serious punishments while gay priests are excommunicated overnight.
Assuming that we maintain some confidence in the Church as a source of inspiration and guidance for those who won't be losing their religion any time soon no matter what I and my fellow atheists say, I will concede that it can be factored in usefully when we're trying to overcome some of our major challenges for the future. I say some because the Church and all other religious institutions are also a part of the obstacles we must urgently overcome, at least in my opinion. Either way, the Church could be a powerful ally, but it simply has to do more than merely preach. It has an enormous power. And it has three options: to use said power in a good way, in a bad way, or not at all. The last two are inexcusable, as I'm sure we can all agree. Yet so far, whatever "good" the Church has done seems not even remotely comparable to the bad it has done or the indifference it has displayed in times of crisis.
Plus the true humor is I posted a site for two quantum physicians discussing quantum consciousness and yet you guys ask what does that have to do with the soul.... ok you either can’t comprehend what quantum consciousness is or you don’t bother to look at the evidence anymore I am assuming out of fear...
But please hit me with your best shot let’s see the intelligent athiest
@Risico007 We do not pretend there is no God, we say we do not believe in God. The burden proof is on your side. And spouting some buzz words does not make you an authority on anything and gives jack credibility to your argument. If you understand the words at all, which I doubt, please enlighten us to what they mean and how they prove God, the soul or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But of course you cannot enlighten us because you have been quote mining, or rather word mining, trying to mention concepts you do not understand to back up your faith. It's ironic that you say we are not academic, since you have proven so far a complete misunderstanding of history, of how to conduct research, how to exercise critical thinking. You mentioned a thesis I believe. If you defend it with the same sort of evidence and argument that you defend your faith, you will flunk it big time.
Thats basically it in a nutshell
Ignoring the Polish artist you claim is a 'quantum physicist' the quantum consciousness you champion as evidence of a soul is a) merely a hypothesis b) basically just states that there are imponderables we struggle to explain.
But in your risible (I'm happy to steal @Ludovico's word as it really is the most succinct description) logic the moment there is a gap in knowledge or something is unknown it automatically means that the answer must be God. I'd love to see you in a pub quiz:
Q: What is the capital of Djibouti?
A: God?
Q: Who scored the winner in the 1979 Anglo-Italian cup final?
A: God?
Q: The character of Pompey features in which Shakespeare play?
A: God?*
Pretty decent of him to wait 3 years till she was 9 before he dipped his wick. Shows what a good bloke he was.
Is MI6 going to be set on fire and a fatwa put out on your head now? Given a normal picture of the prophet (PBUH) drives them mental surely one of him noncing a kid up is beyond the pale?
*Answers for those who value knowledge over ignorance and self delusion: Djibouti City, Sutton Utd, Measure for Measure.
Yes, that's what we have done and that's what we do. What else is there to do? You keep going in circles about how god exists because god exists because the truth is that God exists and if God doesn't exist then how come he exists because he really does exist? So we tell you no, God doesn't exist; the theist crowd goes bonkers, and we have ourselves a couple of good laughs. We're being showered with strange logic like God exists because where else does morality come from?; God exists because how else can we distinguish between good and evil?; God exists because science can't prove everything just yet. Voila! So god exists.
And to that, we say: no, we disagree. It's like telling a child when it's grown old enough, that Santa doesn't exist. Then we can laugh about it. We don't have to prove that God doesn't exist, you know. In fact, we can't. It's not possible to prove that something undefinable, irrational does or doesn't exist. I bet we could make up thousands of weird creatures and entities and whatnot, and you wouldn't be able to prove they don't exist. If I told you the resurrected corpse of Elvis Presley is sitting next to me right now, but you can't see or touch him, go ahead and prove me wrong.
Whoa, okay, time-out!
The principles of quantum theory are understood by a majority of all active physicists. These principles are nevertheless exotic and hard to approach intuitively because few things in our daily experience seem to be directly linked to them. Consequently, it's also possible to read too much into the seemingly infinite possibilities quantum physics offers. Most of quantum physics has the appearance of being talk in thin air anyway, even if it isn't. One of the major frustrations of the quantum physics community is that some scientists tend to take the more intriguing notions of the theory a few notches too far, resulting in speculative talk, bordering on esoteric nonsense, but brought to you by eloquent and otherwise smart people who know how to sell an idea. Yet evidently there's a difference between presenting the world with a spectacular hypothesis, even if it is built on, for the most part, rock solid quantum physics, and actually performing empirical tests which offer reproducible results and are submitted for scrutinous peer evaluation. Scientists think up lots of hypotheses and bury most of them very soon thereafter. Only a small percentage survives the first tests. Those that do are then further examined. Usually, it takes a very long time before a new theory is accepted.
However, with many scientists being pressured to achieve something and the Internet a very unreliable forum for all people with a keyboard and lots of good or false ideas, certain hypotheses leak out into public awareness long before even the first batch of tests has been set up. Even some of the most respectable scientists have pondered over many curious topics, have then dropped an interesting hypothesis and have thus reached the world with still little to no evidence in hand. A beautiful example is Hugh Everett's quantum multiverse hypothesis, presented as an answer to Schrödinger's cat paradox. It was a clever way out of a possible theoretical paradox and science fiction writers still worship at the man's altar for that spark of creative genius, yet thus far, not a single test has been performed to conclusively demonstrate that the quantum multiverse is, indeed, reality. A wise scientist understands the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, between speculation and fact, between a good idea and a tested one. And a good scientist will be honest about that too. When I introduce the quantum multiverse to my students, I tell them what it is: a hypothesis, not a theory nor a fact, but a hypothesis, yet to be tested and therefore not yet a reliable piece of science.
But some scientists are less concerned with "hygienic" science communication. An interesting idea can sell books, put food on the table, lead to name recognition. Scientists are people too, and sometimes people bring ulterior motives to the game. A "quantum consciousness" or "quantum soul" sounds good, but @Risico007, the real tests have yet to be performed. And until then, please forgive my lack of impulsive enthusiasm. Understand also that I'm not trying to convince this forum of my "scientific brilliance". The gentlemen in your linked source are no doubt far better educated than I am. But that doesn't mean I will follow them unconditionally. Einstein was probably far more brilliant than any of us, yet he spent the last three decades of his life trying to steer quantum physics in a totally different direction, away from where it was making progress, to a place that would have obstructed progress rather than facilitate it. I admire the man for his explanations of the photoelectric effect and the Brownian motion and for all of his predictions which have ultimately led to the very successful branch of physics known as relativistic physics. But I also know that even the great Einstein made errors in the final three decades of his career. His example is a very good one. No matter who tries to sell the idea, the idea itself must be amply tested before it can be accepted.
Ergo, your quantum conscience scientists have yet to show us empirical evidence to support their ideas. Until they do, I'm afraid I choose not to accept their sayings as a valid argument in our debate about the soul. If I did accept anything without conclusive evidence, I'd be a bad scientist anyway and a terrible example for my students. I hate to say it, @Risico007, but you'll have to do better than that, as I cannot be convinced on the basis of a few men with the proper credentials saying something that might as well be false.
Or simply believing there is a God or Gods. Religion is a lot more specific and rule-oriented.
This is true enough: some theists don't believe in an afterlife and Buddhists do not believe in a God but believe in souls... that said neither beliefs are supported by evidence.
It's long but it's good stuff[/url]
Not sufficient evidence no. Or else all religions would be true even in their contradictions.
We spent a thousand years getting rid of the stranglehold of that religion, only to import and start appeasing one that is ten times as bad.
What I find truely ironic about this is I can give you all the historical accounts all the research done all the eyewitness testimony from the days of Moses to now and you won’t believe not due to a lack of evidence but due to your own stubbornness (though I think Wizard doesn’t believe out of spite)...
Plus the obvious irony you “believe” there is no god. See atheists have faith too inspite of their denial of it just faith in the wrong thing (at least from my perspective) and (again in my perspective) are no different from the thousands of other false religions throughout time. Sure you clergymen are called different names then the others your places of worship are different as well but the undeniable truth is your placing your life and soul (if such a thing exists I believe science has proven it does and I will get into it in a moment but still so Wizard doesn’t have a heart attack due to anger I figure I will put the caveat in) on a gamble.. no different from those who make their living playing at casinos. Again show me the scientific evidence show me the data convince me I waste my time on Sunday’s and that sad truth is like children with funny hats you convinced yourselves you are pirates and explorers on the quest for truth when you seemingly are just ignoring the truth standing in front of you
I love the last line of this “I can not be convinced by a few men with proper credentials” ok so how many men would it take 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000?
Please share with us the number and I will meet and exceed said number.