EVIDENCE

423 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
"It’s no fossil as it’s still

"It’s no fossil as it’s still living. See Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy."

I'm calling foul, that's a claim, not objective evidence. The claim itself requires objective evidence.

JoC's picture
It’s on display today as we

It’s on display today as we speak. Can’t go? See photgraphs.

Sheldon's picture
How is it objective evidence

How is it objective evidence for a deity? You can see tissue samples in any lab anywhere in the world, nothing supernatural is required for this?

JoC's picture
True. But the fact that this

True. But the fact that this specimen is hundreds of years old and has not decayed when by all means, it should decay over that period of time. Even just a year of this should be enough to tell you this isn't something science can simply explain.

Algebe's picture
JOC: But the fact that this

JOC: But the fact that this specimen is hundreds of years old and has not decayed

Or perhaps the fact that the specimen has not decayed means that it's not hundreds of years old? Obviously you trust the Catholic church and its minions too much to believe that fraud may be involved. I do not.

Sheldon's picture
"True. But the 1) fact that

"True. But the 1) fact that this specimen is hundreds of years old and has not decayed when by all means, it should decay over that period of time. Even just a year of this should be enough to tell you this 2) isn't something science can simply explain."

1) That's a claim not a fact.
2) Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, if something can't be explained then that is all we can assert.

Algebe's picture
@Joc: "traces of God are

@Joc: "traces of God are permited?"

Show us a "trace" of god.

JoC's picture
See Eucharistic miracle of

See Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy. Remember that Catholics believe that the bread becomes Christ’s body and blood. It was studied in 1971. This eucharistic miracle supposedly happened in the 8th century.

Findings found that it was human cardiac tissue and had genetic makeup consistent with a man from 1st century Palestine.

Algebe's picture
@JoC: See Eucharistic miracle

@JoC: See Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy.

Are you serious?

That's the result of a 8th century conjuring trick used to attract pilgrims (and their money). The 1971 testing was done by a hospital pathologist. Did he even use carbon dating? Certainly the science needed to determine the ethnic origin of a piece of flesh didn't exist when the tests were carried out in 1971.

A few drops of dried blood and a desicated lump of cadaver flesh seem a rather modest way for the supreme ruler of the universe to make a point.

JoC's picture
You can read his findings

You can read his findings yourself. He wouldn’t need to use carbon dating if the specimen was alive.

You raise a very valid point though but that’s actually why I asked what would be permitted as evidence. This is evidence of a trace of God. Like how you can deduce that a bear is in the woods based on it’s footprint. You don’t see the bear but you see this footprint in front of you.

You may not get the Supreme ruler of the universe from this, but that’s coz that’s not what God is.

Anyway, maybe in the future, we’ll get another chance to study this specimen. I personally wouldn’t want to push that scientists need to study this as Catholic should always respect the Eucharist all the time.

Also, pretty easy for you to claim a conjuring trick and not identify the trick behind it.

Sapporo's picture
Are you saying that in the

Are you saying that in the 2000 years since he has been allegedly absent from the face of the Earth that he would reveal himself in this rather obscure way to convince a small minority of people? Especially after saying that those who believe without evidence are blessed? Billions of people risk being tortured for not following Christ, and that is the best evidence he can produce?

JoC's picture
I didn't say any of that.

I didn't say any of that.

I'm actually just focusing on one piece of evidence.

Tin-Man's picture
@JoC Re: "...pretty easy

@JoC Re: "...pretty easy for you to claim a conjuring trick and not identify the trick behind it."

You ever watch Penn & Teller, or any other magicians? Hell, those guys do some tricks I can't possibly explain, but I don't have to be able to explain how they do it to know it is only a trick.

Algebe's picture
@Tin-man: You ever watch Penn

@Tin-man: You ever watch Penn & Teller, or any other magicians?

Those guys are brilliant. Even when they explain the tricks, you still can't see how they did it. Watch out if those two ever decide to start a religion. Miracles and wonders will abound.

JoC's picture
The fact that you nor I could

The fact that you nor I could explain those magic tricks is beside the point. But if no one can, not even scientists can explain this. In fact, by using scientific methods, we should predict that this will under no circumstance not happen at all. Why theb could it possibly happen?

Sheldon's picture
You have just used the common

You have just used the common logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam, it's an appeal to ignorance.

Human knowledge is finite, so the fact it can't explain something is absolutely to be expected. The superstitious have used the common logical fallacy you just evoked throughout human existence to make spurious claims for supernatural causation every time we couldn't explain something. In every single instance they had a natural explanation when science examined them, not once has a supernatural cause ever been objectively evidenced.

NB This again then is not objective evidence, but an argument, and it is an argument based on a common logical fallacy, and as such cannot be rationally shown to be true.

David Killens's picture
The difference between magic

The difference between magic and science is that science is magic that was investigated. There are many things we did not know, and there will continue to be things we have not explained yet. Thousands of years ago when ancient shepherds attempted to explain the workings of the world, they threw in the God answer when they ran up against ignorance. What caused thunder? The gods did it.

If given the opportunity, we can investigate and explain unknown events or items. But when one item was subjected to any form of investigation by a hospital doctor and the only hard evidence to come out of it was that the flesh was human cardiac tissue of type AB, one can draw almost any conclusion.

One can not offer up something as evidence then shut the door on any investigation.

Sheldon's picture
"This is evidence of a trace

"This is evidence of a trace of God. Like how you can deduce that a bear is in the woods based on it’s footprint. You don’t see the bear but you see this footprint in front of you."

Bad analogy as you can fake bear prints, and the RCC has a long history of fakery and fraud. I asked at the start in my first post for objective evidence, so testimony from the RCC alone that a miracle has occurred won't do. We have compelling testimonies they faked more than one miracle in order to beatify that sadistic Albanian dwarf of Calcutta after all. Whilst withholding letter from her to her superiors stating candidly that she had stopped believing in god. I don't consider the RCC to be objective, or even a moral organisation.

You'll have to do a lot better if you want to satisfy the request for objective evidence.

" I personally wouldn’t want to push that scientists need to study this"

How convenient.

JoC's picture
You have to look at it from

You have to look at it from my perspective why I wouldn’t want scietists studying this specimen.

Catholics believe that the host is Jesus’ body. I wouldn’t want scientists messing around with Jesus’ body.

As to the other allegations you’ve mentioned, may I ask you refrain from using foul language and provide me all this evidence of fraud?

Algebe's picture
@JoC: As to the other

@JoC: As to the other allegations you’ve mentioned, may I ask you refrain from using foul language and provide me all this evidence of fraud?

Who are you talking to, and who used foul language?

Sapporo's picture
It seems that the "evidence"

It seems that the "evidence" for the claim that the blood had "genetic makeup consistent with a man from 1st century Palestine"...is that it reputedly had the AB bloodtype. Bloodtype cannot be used as a proof of a person's ethnic background, nevermind prove which century they lived in.

The evidence that the alleged Transubstantiation is a fraud is simply that it is immensely improbable that even one molecule of wine could change into blood. A claim is false until proven true: we have no independent observation of the alleged event under test conditions.

Tin-Man's picture
@JoC Re: Foul language

@JoC Re: Foul language

I agree, dammit. Some assholes have no common courtesy. That's just fucking rude. You just tell me who the hell was cussing, and I'll chew their ass out up one side and down the other and put a stop to that bullshit! (Sorry. My turrets kicked in. Couldn't resist.)

Sheldon's picture
Actually no I don't, since I

Actually no I don't, since I don't accept any of the claim, or believe that a deity is real. Also since the RCC already tested it, and got the result they wanted, I'm doubly dubious, firstly I don't believe for a second the flesh was once a wafer and some wine since there isn't a shred of objective evidence to support this claim, secondly the 'miracle' only tested that the flesh was flesh, well so what? As I said the RCC throughout it's history has indulged in fraud and fakery at an institutional level, and on a personal level.

I used no foul language, and rarely do, so I have no idea what you're talking about there. The frauds the RCC supported as miracles are meticulously documented by multiple people. Christopher Hitchens dedicated a book to it. The doctors in attendance on a woman whose ovarian "cancer" was supposedly cured by a rosary that once belonged to the sadistic MT, confirmed she had ovarian cysts and these were cured by medical treatment, her husband confirmed this. This of course is just one case. The RCC has indulged in fraudulence for centuries, selling favours, and almost every cathedral sold wood splinters from the cross or the bones of a saint at one point. They are currently shielding paedophile priests from prosecution in almost every country in the world. They have indulged in criminality on a global scale, I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw a small truck. Least of all on a claim for a miracle.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
I wish there was a "100 likes

I wish there was a "100 likes" button for this Sheldon.

Algebe's picture
JoC: Also, pretty easy for

JoC: Also, pretty easy for you to claim a conjuring trick and not identify the trick behind it.

Priests wear voluminous robes with long, loose sleeves. They often work with their backs to the audience. The interiors of churches are not well lit and often cloudy with incense smoke. It couldn't be easier.

Penn & Teller could do that trick under studio lights with their sleeves rolled up. Chris Angel could do it while levitating into the steeple. David Copperfield could make the whole church disappear and reappear full of sides of beef and buckets of blood.

JoC's picture
That’s a funny thought you

That’s a funny thought you put forward. Not much explanatory power. But funny.

Algebe's picture
@JoC: Not much explanatory

@JoC: Not much explanatory power.

Now that's ironic coming from someone who claims that wafers and wine can turn into flesh and blood, but is opposed to scientific testing of that alleged transformation. And despite saying that you didn't want scientists messing with what you claim to be Christ's body, you cited a very dubious 1971 scientific test that did just that.

JoC's picture
Dubious? Have you even

Dubious? Have you even checked the findings of that study? The fact that it's human heart tissue is amazing to me. Now, before it was studied, I'd have my own qualms about proclaiming this a miracle. I'd be very careful before declaring it a miracle.

Now that we have findings that it is human heart tissue, it's a very small leap for me (as a Catholic) to conclude this isn't a hoax. You might still have your doubts. And I get that. Where's the evidence? In Lanciano. There are a lot of photos you can get of this online. If that's not enough, you can go see it for yourself. It's not something hidden behind closed doors.

Sheldon's picture
Given how common human heart

Given how common human heart tissue is why do you find it amazing? There is no evidence it's origins were once a wafer or wine, none. Nor can that dubious claim be tested. This thread asked for objective evidence, not hearsay.

"Now that we have findings that it is human heart tissue, it's a very small leap for me (as a Catholic) to conclude this isn't a hoax. "

That's why I started a thread asking for objective evidence, I have zero interested in how low you are prepared to set the bar for your own credulity.

You don't seem to understand that the tissue can be unequivocally confirmed to be human, how does this remotely offer objective evidence that it was transformed from wine and wafer by a miracle? Human tissue is more commonplace than RCC frauds to confirm "miracles". Even if you had some way to test and confirm that it wouldn't be objective evidence for a deity. Catholics are always begging the question when it comes to events they claim can't be explained.

Now before this becomes a thread about RCC frauds, can we get back on track with any objective evidence for the existence of a deity please.

JoC's picture
How about the fact that these

How about the fact that these specimens don't decompose when naturally, they should!

I've yet to see it in person but the piece of flesh in question is in the shape of a host used during mass. The bake marks when it was still bread are still visible.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.