I was once in a debate with someone who was a fundamentalist early earth judeo christian. He mentioned that the shroud of turin is proof of gods existence. I was wondering if someone could explain this in a nut shell formula. (I know its not actually proof, but why?) From what I could find on the internet it wasnt all to helpful. something about the cloth jesus was covered with and his image is burned into it.
I was watching an episode of TAE and noticed (I think it was Tracie) said that religions use a form of control called 'institutionalization' which is basically, your parents told you its true, the church you go to expands your beliefs, your school makes you pray. Along with other things that make your beliefs stronger with out ANY evidence. I was searching google and could only find a wiki page explaining this method of control in which jail parolees are unable to cope with being outside of prison after being inside for so long. (also featured in Shawshank Redemption)
Thanks - Steam
The Shroud of Turin is as good as the Bible in the sense that while they may be physical objects, they are not proof of any form of divinity.
There once was a guy named Jesus. He was the son of God. When he died, they put a shroud on his face that is called the Shroud of Turin. He is real and the son of god because the shroud is real and has his face on it.
Now, replace "Jesus" with "Optimus Prime". That is why the whole Shroud of Turin thing is about as useful as "the bible is the word of god because it says so" argument.
I'll rephrase the argument to expose the reasoning flaw.
Say, I show you an iPhone and say:
"Here is an iPhone." This is a cold fact.
"All iPhones are made by Apple company".
You and I may both agree that this is true based on information otherwise available to both of us. This is the key.
Conclusion: "Apple company exists."
Now we replace "Apple" with "God". The argument would go as follows:
"At least, one iPhone exists." (still a cold fact).
"All iPhones are created by God." There is no agreement or evidence that this is true.
Therefore, conclusion "God exists" cannot be made from the two premises.
In a nut shell, one premise is a fact, another premise must be either a fact or assumed to be true to make this argument valid. So, although this is a valid argument between believers, it does not work for atheists.
Follow us on:
From the officers:
The ACA Lecture Series returns Sunday, March 9th with Vic Cornell giving us an update on ACLU activities. The lecture starts at 12:15pm at the Austin History Center, 9th and Guadalupe. The building opens at noon.
ACA members! It's time to renew your ACA membership. You can do so online if you log in and then click here or check your e-mail for alternate instructions. Thanks for supporting the ACA.