EVIDENCE

423 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
"How about the fact that

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

I don't accept this is the case, as no objective evidence has been demonstrated, the RCC's track record is dubious at best. However lets assume this is true, all you have done is make a claim and pose a question, how is that objective evidence for a deity? At best it's something you can't explain, based on a claim you can't objectively evidence, your standard for evidence is about what I have come to expect from religious apologetics.

"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. "

Again I'm dubious, and again so what? If I got a lab to prove some I had some human flesh in the shape of Jaffa cake would you believe me if I claimed it was transformed from a Jaffa cake using magic?

"The bake marks when it was still bread are still visible."

You do know what begging the question means right? The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. Please note you are offering the claim of the marks as evidence but say "when it was bread" which is an assumption you have yet to properly evidence. Where is the peer reviewed research explaining how that happened?

Sapporo's picture
At best, any study would only

At best, any study would only prove that someone had placed human heart tissue in a container.

Sheldon's picture
Precisely correct. JoC's

Precisely correct. JoC's "miracle" is evidencing something unremarkable, pretending it is conclusive, but accepting a "miracle" based on hearsay over 1200 years ago. Eighth century Monks are hardly a reliably objective source of testimony as well.

If anyone sets the bar that low, then this thread is not the place for them, as I asked for objective evidence, and they have no interest in that, probably don't even grasp what it is.

Sushisnake 's picture
@Sapporo

@Sapporo
Religious apophenia does the rest.

Algebe's picture
@JoC: ou can go see it for

@JoC: ou can go see it for yourself.

Evidence in court is worthless without a chain of custody. So where have these nasty things in Lanciano been for the past 12 centuries? Who held them, and what did they do with them?

Constantine's mother Helena started this fraudulent process when she claimed to have discovered the tomb and cross of Jesus in Jerusalem. Ever since, the church has manufacturing and selling "sacred" relics to gullible, sick, and frightened people.

P.S. I've already seen one of the Holy Lances in Vienna, but I believe there are others in Paris and Armenia. How can that be?

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - You can read his

JoC - You can read his findings yourself.

Actually I can't, I don't read Italian. However I have read a translated version, and your description of his findings are dishonest as hell.

JoC's picture
How? How was I dishonest?

How? How was I dishonest?

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - How? How was I

JoC - How? How was I dishonest?

JoC - It was studied in 1971...Findings found that it was human cardiac tissue and had genetic makeup consistent with a man from 1st century Palestine.

There were no genetic results in the finding. Also there was no genetic testing done on the sample (which kind of explains why there were no genetic results listed in the findings).

Sheldon's picture
To be fair I suspect he was

To be fair I suspect he was simply accepting the fraud that was being offered, and hasn't remotely bothered to do even a cursory check of the facts. Even a prima facie check online is enough to see this doesn't come close to objective evidence of anything, let alone the existence of a deity.

Sheldon's picture
Have you read my link? http

Have you read my link? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/05/catholic-presents...

Here are some snippets...

"this story is from an anonymous source in the 17th century — almost 1,000 years after the alleged event was said to happen. In other words, it’s yet another fantastical story with no evidence."

"who is this “most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli”? I can’t find anything about him on Google, other than Catholics raving about this study. What exactly has he contributed to science to make him a “most illustrious scientist”? It seems like they’re building up an argument from authority, but this person certainly doesn’t seem eminent in his field — no one has even heard of him."

"I also find it suspicious that it was under “various ecclesiastical investigations” from 1574 – 1970. What exactly did they do? How can we be sure no one tampered with the evidence — if there was any to begin with?"

Any scientific study using this kind of cloak and dagger would be laughed at.

"How do we know what the scientists were studying had anything to do with this alleged miracle?"

Well quite...it goes on

"So the tests claim there is real flesh and blood in a Catholic museum. I can do tests and show you something is real flesh and blood, too. Does that mean you’d believe me if I said it came from a twinkie and orange juice?"

"That is, just because they have flesh and blood locked up somewhere doesn’t mean it was magically transformed by a doubting priest in 700 CE from a cracker and wine."

That's it in a nutshell....Have you looked at any sources outside of the RCC, and read any real criticisms of these claims? Also why do you assume the flesh was produced by a miracle, and focus on the test of the result, which doesn't remotely confirm the claim it was produced by a miracle? Lastly why so reluctant to test the Eucharist but then laud this fraud as proof? That''s a shocking double standard to me.

JoC's picture
I’ve explained why I don’t

I’ve explained why I don’t want the thing to be tested. You may read back on that.

You may however, look for photographs on this. Many of the analyses have been made on these photos as well.

Sheldon's picture
I don't care why you don't

I don't care why you don't want it tested, I asked for objective evidence for the existence of a deity, not excuses why you think you can't provide any.

"You may however, look for photographs on this. Many of the analyses have been made on these photos as well."

Go back through the thread and read the responses, the photographs and the "testing" are irrelevant, as they don't evidence the provenance of the tissue. If you can show objective evidence that this tissue transformed from wafer and wine then do so, but even the RCC hasn't tried to offer this, just the bare claim from a monk centuries ago. Then you would need to offer objective evidence that this evidenced the existence of a deity. So far you have made a claim for miracle, and offered test results showing the Vatican have some human tissue and blood, so what?

Sheldon's picture
"I’ve explained why I don’t

"I’ve explained why I don’t want the thing to be tested. You may read back on that."

Then don't pretend it's objective evidence for the existence of a deity, or a miracle. You can't have it both ways, claiming evidence but then claiming you don;t want it properly tested.

talynEarth03's picture
Hi Nyarlathotep, can i ask

Hi Nyarlathotep, can i ask you where did you find the study? Only catholic sites mention it... Thanks

Nyarlathotep's picture
The claim can be easily

The claim can be easily dismissed with not much more than hand-waving; since that kind of DNA testing wasn't available in 1971. But to go a little further:
------------------------------------------------------------
An English translation used to appear in google docs but it is now blocked, I'm trying to get in touch with the owner.
------------------------------------------------------------
I PM'ed you a url where you can get a "less than legal" copy of the original publication in Italian.
------------------------------------------------------------
A link to some English tidbits 1.
------------------------------------------------------------

an English summary (no mention of DNA or DNA testing in summary) -
The flesh is real flesh. The blood is real blood.

The flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart (myocardium)

The flesh and blood belong to the human species.

The flesh and blood have the same blood type (AB).

In the blood, there were found proteins in the same normal proportions as are found in the scro-proteic make up of fresh, normal blood.

In the blood, there were also found these minerals: Chlorides, phosphorous, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the flesh and of the blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries (without any chemical preservatives) and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - It was studied in 1971.

JoC - 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.

(beep beep): that is my skeptic alarm: BULLSHIT!

edit: beaten by Algebe

Sheldon's picture
" all the scientific

" all the scientific examinations since the event have served to establish nothing more than that the objects in question are real human flesh and blood. The claim that they were once bread and wine and that there was a miraculous transubstantiation is just that, a claim by a priest 1300 years ago with no support whatsoever."

Furthermore if the transubstantiation is believed then this flesh would be divine, and a simple DNA test would show unequivocally the donor had no biological father. I wouldn't trust the RCC to be objective here given it's track record, but their reluctance to proceed speaks volumes.

However we digress, in this thread a claim for a miracle is just that, a claim, and not objective evidence as requested at the start.

Edit: A good objective and open minded refutation of the claimed miracle here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/05/catholic-presents...

Pretty much spot on.

Sheldon's picture
No it they didn't, and no it

No they didn't, and no it doesn't, I warned you about Hitchens's razor.

Now if you claim transubstantiation is true, then this is a doddle to test, the RCC could do it in any one of millions of their churches worldwide virtually any day of the week, no? I'm looking at the news now, and see nothing about a scientific validation of this claim? Can you link any published scientific papers, in a worthy peer reviewed journal that evidences your claim? I stated at the start I was looking for objective evidence, and since you're trying to make a claim that can be easily tested empirically then emphatic and irrefutable scientific evidence would be a reasonable and objective expectation here.

JoC's picture
I’m not at all asserting

I’m not at all asserting anything without proof.

You may look for those photos and links yourself. I believe I’ve mentioned some of them in the thread already. If not, google is your friend.

Sheldon's picture
It's your claim, so you must

It's your claim, so you must evidence it. I'm not researching this for you.

1. The evidence that the rcc have some human tissue is meaningless unless its provenance can also be objectively evidenced.
2. You still have all your work before you as all the RRC have offered is a claim from a monk that is 800 years old and can't be tested. The fact they can confirm human tissue is human tissue tells us nothing.

Sheldon's picture
"Define "evidence". Does it

"Define "evidence". Does it need to be scientific? Can it be Philiosophical? It it needs to be material, does it need to be God himself or a traces of God are permited?"

That's not for me to say, I am not making any claims. I would be prepared to go this far, that the evidence supplied must be commensurate to claim and objectively verifiable.

JoC's picture
Actually, since you’re the

Actually, since you’re the one asking for evidence, you do need to be the one to say.

Anyway, another pc of Philosophical evidence for God’s existence —> see Aquinas 5 ways. If they’ve been debunked (as I’m sure you’ll claim) please give me a link. I’ll gladly read it.

Sheldon's picture
I asked for objective

I asked for objective evidence. This is not objective evidence, it is a collection of arguments. If you want to post them be my guest, I'm not looking for them for you though. And yes, theyve been thoroughly debunked. They're not very compelling to any objective view.

JoC's picture
Can you show me how they're

Can you show me how they're debunked? A link or article will suffice. Thanks!

Sheldon's picture
Google it, this thread is for

Google it, this thread is for objective evidence FOR the existence of a deity. Though unsurprisingly all we have had is a string of anecdotal claims for miracles, and common logical fallacies.

Kataclismic's picture
JoC,

JoC,

Are you seriously this ignorant? If I say there's a watch in my pocket it doesn't make any sense for me to ask you what evidence you would accept for it; I just pull a watch out of my pocket.

The problem is you have already convinced yourself without evidence, which leaves you absent in the knowledge of what would qualify as evidence.

JoC's picture
I've actually been on a

I've actually been on a search for evidence around mid last year and have been convinced by the evidence that I see. So I ask you, what kind of evidence are you looking for?

Historical? Scientific? Philosophical? Personal experience (I don't have much of this that's convincing)? Because I can show certain evidence but if you won't accept them anyway, it's pretty futile on my part.

Sapporo's picture
For me, the Abrahamic god has

For me, the Abrahamic god has been proved false by past moral absence. In addition, I believe that a moral god would not care if I believe in its existence - the whole question of trying to "prove" god is an empty exercise for me.

calhais's picture
This sort of 'me-good'

This sort of 'me-good' reasoning--deciding the precepts of morality rather than giving an ontological argument--is post-modern bullshit.

Kataclismic's picture
Exactly. You have to convince

JoC,

Exactly. You have to convince yourself that you have evidence because there isn't any. Telling me that you are sure it is evidence doesn't make it evidence, it makes it obvious that you have to declare things as evidence to convince yourself.

You must understand the scientific method to understand what would qualify as evidence. Then you will understand that you don't have any and this conversation will be over.

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.