> -----Original Message----- > From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:15 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Oh dear God no..... > > > I can agree with all of that every single thing you say. BUT - that > > still doesn't mean that their aren't many (MANY) people not willing > to > > compromise on this > > Certainly...I agree with that. But this is not what you said. You said > that it's "not a compromise many are willing to make". That I disagree > with...it *is* a compromise many make, and have no problem making.
Oh come on! That's semantics... millions are clearly, vocally NOT willing to make that compromise... ain't that "many"? Many isn't objective... both sides of an argument can be supported by "many". ;^) > > No... it doesn't. I'm sorry to be pendantic but the science doesn't > > "support" the idea. Rather it simply doesn't contradict it. > > Exact phrasing of my meaning aside, your argument was that science and > religion cannot reconcile with each other, and the point is that they > clearly can. NO - that's not what I said. I said specifically that I becoming more and more convinced that this is the case. This is a personal opinion which is getting strengthened. I did not make a claim that it was impossible, just that I'm becoming less convinced of the possibility. I would also make a clear distinction between faith and religion. To me (again, my opinion only) science is founded in accepting that which for which we have evidence. Faith is about accepting as truth that for which we do not have evidence. I find these difficult to reconcile. Religion is generally about control and codification. I'm sure examples could be raised but this nearly always means claims about the world that will often conflict with science. > > He's a senior > > Research Fellow for the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of > > Claims of the Paranormal. > > Haha, that's pretty funny. Yeah, like *that's* a real accredited > science degree. That's not a degree... but it does earn a modicum of respect. You may not agree with his views on this matter, but at least give him the respect that his work deserves. I'll happily agree that he may be wrong about any number of things, but his research represents dedicated, quality work. You may not like the man, but don't denigrate him. > > Nickell is a respected researcher. > > Uh, by who? Other skeptics only. Again, until he is published in actual > scientific, peer-reviewed journals, you cannot make sure a statement > about his credentials. The very fact that someone with virtually no > scientific training whatsoever tries to pass himself off as an expert > in these areas alone makes him worthy of total skepticism. I think you'll find that most scientists are skeptics. The list of CSI fellows is illustrious to say the least, and they, at the very least find him worthy as a peer. Michael Shermer considers him a scientific investigator as does John Renee. Are you seriously saying that somebody with the credentials and body of work of Nickell should be ignored simply because he's not been published in a journal (and, for what it's worth "Skeptical Inquirer", while not a formal scientific journal is peer reviewed). > > How so? He has no investment in the matter one way or the other. > > Sure he does. He makes his living debunking myths and frauds. No... actually he doesn't. He makes his living as a document analyst and investigator and what little his books bring in. It's a mistake, one that you're not alone in making, in believing that skeptics WANT to debunk everything. Skeptics want evidence. The Shroud is a great example of a "fishy" story. An object appearing in the 14th (a time rife with religious fraud and false artifacts) century claiming miraculous origins? Shouldn't we be skeptical? > Well assuming your statement about any atheistic agreeing in the > historical figure (not so sure about that) is true, again, why should Why not? I looked and couldn't find any respected atheist or skeptic that claimed that Jesus was a myth out of whole cloth. (For that matter I couldn't find any not-respected atheist or skeptic that claimed it either.) > Christians care about its authenticity in the least? As you say, > whether it is authentic or not, does not matter in terms of his > divinity and thus, their belief in him as God. Atheists though are > threatened by the idea because if the shroud is authentic, and it > clearly mirrors the biblical account of the passion story, then it's > much harder to discount the rest of the story. Keep in mind that if the Not in the least. There's no problem discounting every single supernatural aspect of Jesus regardless of the authenticity of the shroud. > shroud *is* authentic, then the body would have been removed for some > reason from it within days of death. It's hard to comprehend a reason > for doing this, or how it was done so that the image and blood were not > disturbed. And yes, I know this doesn't *prove* anything just because There's no possible way to conclude 1) that it was removed within days of days, 2) that nothing was disturbed. Even if authentic the shroud's history precludes that: 1000 years of wear and tear (several hundred of them in cognito) makes any such statements suspect on the face of them. > we cannot explain it. But I do think that attempts to explain this are > particularly threatening to atheists because they *imply* a miraculous > event....mainly because they are beyond our experience so far. Not at all. I don't think they imply miraculous events at all, in any way. There are millions, hundreds of millions of things that we don't understand and can't explain and none of them are particularly threatening to atheists. It's a fact of life, and not a very alarming one, that not everything can be explained. > > Damn... it looks like I did argue. ;^) > > No kidding! I personally love a good debate though, and I do find the > shroud endlessly fascinating and something even most Christians know > very little about. I'm still more than skeptical about it, but honestly I've never found it all that engaging. I don't argue about it well enough to put up a good fight. ;^) Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:250229 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
