Christian belief and the value of the study of the shroud of Turin

For what it is worth, I think that the weight of evidence against the shroud being genuine is the strongest.  It makes no diffference at all to my faith!

It seems to me that some people do need gods , and the objective morals that religious traditions offer. I'm not suggesting that they are correct in anything other than a personal or subjective sense.
For anyone to state the converse.....Strikes me as extremly wrongheaded.

I do hope you don't think that everybody who believes in God or gods does so because they need to.  I agree with the apostle Paul - "If there is no resurrection from the dead then we, of all people, are to be pitied"   If there is no God, I would like to know about it so that I don't have to waste my life on a fantasy!

Those who think they do are just lazy.

Baloney.  Again, the arrogance of supposed absolute knowledge here is a fatal flaw.  Unless, of course, you are the one fully illuminated entity on the planet.

I don't care that they would want to tell people their "truth" I care why they would want to do so in the first place what type of person does one have to be to believe that christianity, or indeed any deific religion, would be something worth promoting?

I've yet to meet even a single example of a "humble christian". Given that every single one I've met states that they believe in an all powerful being who rewards or punishes people for reasons ranging from obedience/disobedience to mere whims. And not only do they believe this but they believe that such a thing is "good" to believe, that it in fact makes them a better person.

Thus all christians I've met not only worship a totalitarian dictators but actually like the tactics of totalitarian dictatorships and think that other people need help if they don't think the same. All while claiming the contrary. The worst are those who cherry pick the nice parts of their respective belief systems while also still doing all of the former. As if they can genuinely believe that there really is this dictator but also believe they can decides what they are dictating. And then when members of their group inevitably acts like the dictator they believe in, the best they can do is say "oh well, we're not all like that."

They're not humble, they're pathetic, narcissistic, lazy cowards who couldn't be bothered to run their own lives so they outsourced it to someone else. And then claim that other people would be better if they outsourced their lives too.

But don't take my word for it. TheraminTrees and previously,  QualiaSoup have done extensive analyses of the psychology underlying deific religions.

For example:



And:



Once again, as far as I can logically tell, the only real reason a christian would have to want the shroud of turin proven is to feel special and probably go around acting like self righteous dicks to others since now they can justify it It's baked into the fundamental psychology of it and every other deific faith that I've ever come across. Love, acceptance, compassion, these things aren't.

This is grossly over the top, and for someone who is criticizing literally an entire group of people without exception for being arrogant, you're being unbelievably arrogant.

It's also totally misguided. Congratulations, you've met a bunch of Christians who you think are wretched. It seems reasonable to suggest that there might be others who interact with those same people and do not come away with the same conclusion. It's also possible (entirely likely, in fact) that there are actually Christians who are different than the ones you have interacted with. 

On top of that, you seem to think those two videos are something like a checkmate. They're just two videos, with two people's opinions. They're not some smoking gun, some dispositive piece of information (which you seem to think they are) where any person who is separated enough from Christianity can watch them and afterwards agree, without a doubt, with all the excessive criticisms you've leveled against every single believer in Christianity or any theistic religion on the whole. This is an entirely subjective thing. There is no objectivity as to the qualities of a person as you've described them. Nor, I think, would a large number of informed, educated Christians agree with the qualities that you've attributed to their version of god. It seems, as Silence has pointed out, that you are extremely jaded and have some serious beef with theistic religions.

Given that every single one I've met states that they believe in an all powerful being who rewards or punishes people for reasons ranging from obedience/disobedience to mere whims. And not only do they believe this but they believe that such a thing is "good" to believe, that it in fact makes them a better person.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. Every Christian you've met is not every Christian. You also, in painting with a broad brush, have certainly created a god that many, many Christians likely do not subscribe to. You have described qualities that many may not agree with. You're doing an awful lot of attribution here, which is a bit risky given your clear animosity.

Thus all christians I've met not only worship a totalitarian dictators but actually like the tactics of totalitarian dictatorships and think that other people need help if they don't think the same.

Again, this is totally unjustified. You've decided to term it "totalitarian dictatorship" because that's your approach and the way you choose to think about it. It's also the farthest thing from an objective truth. It's not difficult to conceive of a Christian god that does not function as a crackpot dictator. And again, "all Christians [you've] met" are not all Christians. I'm also very certain that all Christians do not think that other people "need help" (be more condescending, for goodness sake) if they don't think the same thing. This is just caricature after caricature.

As if they can genuinely believe that there really is this dictator but also believe they can decides what they are dictating. And then when members of their group inevitably acts like the dictator they believe in, the best they can do is say "oh well, we're not all like that."

Again you're assuming they believe in this dictator because that's what you're saying they believe in. Many may not. I don't think it's difficult to conceive of a logically consistent god that is both all powerful and that simultaneously permits living things to freely make choices. Those two things just are not mutually exclusive. It's not clear to me what you're saying with that first sentence. If you mean that you don't understand how they can believe such a "dictator" exists, while also believing that that very same dictator can decide what to do, well, I just don't understand what exactly the issue is. That's perfectly logically consistent. If you mean you don't understand how this "dictator" could exist, and how people could also believe they have free choice, well, as I said above I don't think the two are antithetical.

The latter part of what you've said here is dismissive even though the mocking quote you've put in is entirely reasonable. Just because some people think and act one way, does not mean that the belief system as a whole forces people to act that way. There are undoubtedly substantially more examples of people "not all being like that." 

They're not humble, they're pathetic, narcissistic, lazy cowards who couldn't be bothered to run their own lives so they outsourced it to someone else. And then claim that other people would be better if they outsourced their lives too.

 

And again, totally, completely unjustified. This is itself an incredibly lazy and intellectually dishonest statement, and does read as an angry person ranting against something they are really emotionally worked up about. If you think that all Christians or theistic believers believe in a god because they are so meek as to say, "well I can just pass it off to god and not worry about anything," I would question whether you are able to separate your (clear) emotional bend against religions from reason. I have read plenty of theistic philosophers' posts, articles, and books who would surely not subscribe to anything like what you've written here as far as why it is they believe in their version of god. It's also very likely true that there are a whole lot of Christians who would never say anything like "other people would be better if they just 'outsourced' their lives to god, I wish they would just be the same as me."

But don't take my word for it. TheraminTrees and previously,  QualiaSoup have done extensive analyses of the psychology underlying deific religions.

I already said this, but to reiterate, two Youtube channels doing this analysis does not mean that it is some objective thing with a clear cut truth, as you seem to think is the case.

Edit: I don't mean to get too far off topic, but I did want to respond here. My apologies.

It seems to me that some people do need gods , and the objective morals that religious traditions offer. I'm not suggesting that they are correct in anything other than a personal or subjective sense.
For anyone to state the converse.....Strikes me as extremly wrongheaded.

Ah yes the good ole' "selective free will" and "respect my beliefs" deflection combo.

For those may not have not seen this defense a bajillion times I'll break it down for you

Selective free will bias - the tendency for a person to mutate the claimed/perceived locus of control of themselves or others based on personal preference rather than demonstrable constrains/freedoms. When someone is using the SFWB they claim that in some situations free will exists, but in others people are little more than programmed robots. An obvious double standard.

One example where this strategy is seen is addicts who claim that they are powerless to take any action to get rid of their addiction. Despite examples of successful recoveries and the relative simplicity of at least one of the first steps. Thanks to the double standard of the SFWB and the counter evidence to the claim this really means one of two things:

1: The addict does not want to be rid of their addiction (lying)
2: The addict wants to be rid of their addiction but is unwilling to put in the effort to do so (laziness)

Both of these might be the same answer, lying. Since they weigh the pros and cons consciously or subconsciously and continuing the habit comes out on top each time. Therefore, they want to be addicted. Attempts to say otherwise kicks them back into the same loop, if they really want it, why are they still taking drugs/overeating/etc?

If something looks hard or unpleasant, just say it's "impossible". No one could fault you for not trying to do something "impossible", right? that's the SFWB in a nutshell.

The SFWB can be equally applied to others as well, with the same logical problems. such as in your case

You say that there's people who "need" religion 

It seems to me that some people do need gods , and the objective morals that religious traditions offer. 

while in the same sentence saying that it's a personal or subjective choice

I'm not suggesting that they are correct in anything other than a personal or subjective sense.

Well which is it Oleo? Are they programmed robots with a programmed requirement for religion, or a free thinking individual capable of coming to personal, subjective conclusions? I mean, I don't need any of those ideas, so why do they? Is the insinuation that I am intrinsically special or different than them? A different model of robot as it were? Or are they/you lying about their "need" or just too lazy to  put in the effort?

oh and inb4 "You say free will doesn't exist!" because someone would probably mention that.

Yes, I see no mathematical proof that free will is actually possible, however, I like the idea of free will and so continue to use it as an ideal to be reached rather than an intrinsic component of reality. Naming my version "functional free will".

As far as how "wrongheaded" I may be for picking apart other belief structures and not respecting them as a result, I'm not, and here's detailed explanations why:





I believe all this answers Silence's criticism as well. I mean if it wasn't just an ad homnem based on nothing.

For what it is worth, I think that the weight of evidence against the shroud being genuine is the strongest.  It makes no diffference at all to my faith!



I do hope you don't think that everybody who believes in God or gods does so because they need to.  I agree with the apostle Paul - "If there is no resurrection from the dead then we, of all people, are to be pitied"   If there is no God, I would like to know about it so that I don't have to waste my life on a fantasy!

And that's why I respect you Brian.

This is grossly over the top, and for someone who is criticizing literally an entire group of people without exception for being arrogant, you're being unbelievably arrogant.

It's also totally misguided. Congratulations, you've met a bunch of Christians who you think are wretched. It seems reasonable to suggest that there might be others who interact with those same people and do not come away with the same conclusion. It's also possible (entirely likely, in fact) that there are actually Christians who are different than the ones you have interacted with. 

On top of that, you seem to think those two videos are something like a checkmate. They're just two videos, with two people's opinions. They're not some smoking gun, some dispositive piece of information (which you seem to think they are) where any person who is separated enough from Christianity can watch them and afterwards agree, without a doubt, with all the excessive criticisms you've leveled against every single believer in Christianity or any theistic religion on the whole. This is an entirely subjective thing. There is no objectivity as to the qualities of a person as you've described them. Nor, I think, would a large number of informed, educated Christians agree with the qualities that you've attributed to their version of god. It seems, as Silence has pointed out, that you are extremely jaded and have some serious beef with theistic religions.


This is a good example of what I'm talking about. Every Christian you've met is not every Christian. You also, in painting with a broad brush, have certainly created a god that many, many Christians likely do not subscribe to. You have described qualities that many may not agree with. You're doing an awful lot of attribution here, which is a bit risky given your clear animosity.


Again, this is totally unjustified. You've decided to term it "totalitarian dictatorship" because that's your approach and the way you choose to think about it. It's also the farthest thing from an objective truth. It's not difficult to conceive of a Christian god that does not function as a crackpot dictator. And again, "all Christians [you've] met" are not all Christians. I'm also very certain that all Christians do not think that other people "need help" (be more condescending, for goodness sake) if they don't think the same thing. This is just caricature after caricature.


Again you're assuming they believe in this dictator because that's what you're saying they believe in. Many may not. I don't think it's difficult to conceive of a logically consistent god that is both all powerful and that simultaneously permits living things to freely make choices. Those two things just are not mutually exclusive. It's not clear to me what you're saying with that first sentence. If you mean that you don't understand how they can believe such a "dictator" exists, while also believing that that very same dictator can decide what to do, well, I just don't understand what exactly the issue is. That's perfectly logically consistent. If you mean you don't understand how this "dictator" could exist, and how people could also believe they have free choice, well, as I said above I don't think the two are antithetical.

The latter part of what you've said here is dismissive even though the mocking quote you've put in is entirely reasonable. Just because some people think and act one way, does not mean that the belief system as a whole forces people to act that way. There are undoubtedly substantially more examples of people "not all being like that." 

 

And again, totally, completely unjustified. This is itself an incredibly lazy and intellectually dishonest statement, and does read as an angry person ranting against something they are really emotionally worked up about. If you think that all Christians or theistic believers believe in a god because they are so meek as to say, "well I can just pass it off to god and not worry about anything," I would question whether you are able to separate your (clear) emotional bend against religions from reason. I have read plenty of theistic philosophers' posts, articles, and books who would surely not subscribe to anything like what you've written here as far as why it is they believe in their version of god. It's also very likely true that there are a whole lot of Christians who would never say anything like "other people would be better if they just 'outsourced' their lives to god, I wish they would just be the same as me."


I already said this, but to reiterate, two Youtube channels doing this analysis does not mean that it is some objective thing with a clear cut truth, as you seem to think is the case.

Edit: I don't mean to get too far off topic, but I did want to respond here. My apologies.

Yeah you're saying "their version of god" and similar a lot in there, I.e the "No true christian" fallacy which is a pretty massive part of the problem and is already something I mentioned above. I also mentioned in several previous posts that I direct this SPECIFICALLY at individuals who SPECIFICALLY hold these sorts of SPECIFIC beliefs. Do I need to quote myself for you or can I trust you'll actually read them yourself?

I did that because I know that there are many people who use the same label but decide that they'll just make up whatever belief system they want and still call it christian even though it makes no sense to do so. Kinda like how the definition of "art" has expanded so much it now includes plain white canvases with nothing on them. Makes no sense, but some people claim its super deep and philosophical anyways and will get real mad at anyone who dares say their blank canvas isn't "art".

I mean, how far can you stretch the term "christian" until it's no longer christian? Could you have a christian who doesn't believe in god, jesus or an afterlife? What's the base components of christianity that must be there for the term to makes any semblance of definitiory sense? What are the things that absolutely must not be there? Again, just the "we're not all like that" shirk of responsibility.

As I've repeatedly stated, that's what I've been talking about. Not this blanket judgement thing you're going on about. I took the kernel of what is largely considered christian and looked at it's base logic and how the Shroud of Turin is connected to it. Sorry if being really specific equates to a blanket judgement on an entire group of people in your mind. It certainly equates to judgement of a group of people, just a really specific group of people. 

Perhaps if others outside that specific group don't want to share the problems and drama caused by that group, maybe they should either 
A: officially remove that group from their organization or 
B: stop using the same name.

Of course in order to do either of those they'd need to have some sort of strict definition of what a christian even is and who gets to be one in the first place. So until that happens, have fun having the good ones lumped in with the bad.

Oh you don't think the videos are good enough do you? Fantastic, go pick out specific points you think are wrong and we can discuss them in another topic. Otherwise what's the point in you even bringing it up? Or is hand waving them away as mere internet opinions the best intellectual defense you can muster?

Baloney.  Again, the arrogance of supposed absolute knowledge here is a fatal flaw.  Unless, of course, you are the one fully illuminated entity on the planet.

Are we referring here to what the word "knowledge" is supposed to mean, i.e. definite objective information, or are we referring to the experience of knowing, i.e. a subjective certainty?  It is certainly possible to be certain about something but one might have to admit that there is the theoretical possibility, no matter how slim,  that that certainty is a delusion.  Absolute knowledge is, in itself, only a subjective experience anyway.

I mean, how far can you stretch the term "christian" until it's no longer christian? Could you have a christian who doesn't believe in god, jesus or an afterlife? What's the base components of christianity that must be there for the term to makes any semblance of definitiory sense? What are the things that absolutely must not be there? Again, just the "we're not all like that" shirk of responsibility.

Well, a follower of Christ would be an easy definition. 

Other than that, there is a huge and varied range of theological thinking, practice, and revelatory experience contained within Christianity and its history. 

Deism, Neo-Platonism, Pantheism, Panentheism, folk magic, animism, mysticism, ceremonial magic, reincarnation, shamanism, and more, all have precedents.

It's a broad, excuse the pun, church.  Well, it should be, anyway.

Best.

Yeah you're saying "their version of god" and similar a lot in there, I.e the "No true christian" fallacy which is a pretty massive part of the problem and is already something I mentioned above. I also mentioned in several previous posts that I direct this SPECIFICALLY at individuals who SPECIFICALLY hold these sorts of SPECIFIC beliefs. Do I need to quote myself for you or can I trust you'll actually read them yourself?

I did that because I know that there are many people who use the same label but decide that they'll just make up whatever belief system they want and still call it christian even though it makes no sense to do so. Kinda like how the definition of "art" has expanded so much it now includes plain white canvases with nothing on them. Makes no sense, but some people claim its super deep and philosophical anyways and will get real mad at anyone who dares say their blank canvas isn't "art".

I mean, how far can you stretch the term "christian" until it's no longer christian? Could you have a christian who doesn't believe in god, jesus or an afterlife? What's the base components of christianity that must be there for the term to makes any semblance of definitiory sense? What are the things that absolutely must not be there? Again, just the "we're not all like that" shirk of responsibility.

As I've repeatedly stated, that's what I've been talking about. Not this blanket judgement thing you're going on about. I took the kernel of what is largely considered christian and looked at it's base logic and how the Shroud of Turin is connected to it. Sorry if being really specific equates to a blanket judgement on an entire group of people in your mind. It certainly equates to judgement of a group of people, just a really specific group of people. 

Perhaps if others outside that specific group don't want to share the problems and drama caused by that group, maybe they should either 
A: officially remove that group from their organization or 
B: stop using the same name.

Of course in order to do either of those they'd need to have some sort of strict definition of what a christian even is and who gets to be one in the first place. So until that happens, have fun having the good ones lumped in with the bad.

Oh you don't think the videos are good enough do you? Fantastic, go pick out specific points you think are wrong and we can discuss them in another topic. Otherwise what's the point in you even bringing it up? Or is hand waving them away as mere internet opinions the best intellectual defense you can muster?

I think that you and I fundamentally view Christianity or any theistic faith differently, based on this post. What is the point of criticizing "specific" people, as you say, when there are many different sects or points of view? What dpdown said is exactly right: the reality of Christianity or any theistic religion is that, while those terms or labels might give you a generally good starting point idea for what exactly the person believes, there is no way in hell that they're going to give you the whole picture. You can rant as hard as you want about the no true Christian fallacy, but when there are serious theological debates within Christian circles over a wide variety of Christian issues, it can hardly be said with any sense of intellectual honesty that there is one "true" from of Christianity. 

What I have done here is not change the definition of Christianity on an ad hoc basis - I'm criticizing your characterization of what may well be a very, very small sect of "specific" (according to you) people who you're calling Christians and extrapolating from there. How you could claim that your post is so specific and then try to tie it to implications from the Shroud is beyond me. Those implications vary markedly depending on the person's beliefs. As much as you might want there to be one "pure" form of Christianity to lambast, you and I both know that isn't the case. It's a starting point label and does not tell you probably half of what most people believe. That's human nature, not a religious flaw, and it applies to labels of literally any sort. Calling someone an atheist ought to tell you they don't believe god exists, as a baseline. But it doesn't tell you much more than that. Sure, the term comes with a lot of baggage, but that baggage is diverse and is certainly person-dependent. I would not accuse an atheist of the "no true atheist" fallacy if they said that their beliefs about consciousness or the afterlife weren't the same as the atheist populace at large. So too with Christianity or any other faith. Call it a fallacy all you want, but it's a legitimate statement to say that there is hardly a "true" Christianity, at least in a broad sense, beyond maybe "believes in Jesus Christ as god" or maybe a bit more than that.

It's odd that you'd accuse me of not reading your posts. Do you read your own posts? There is absolutely nothing in the post I quoted earlier suggesting that you're intending to target a very specific group of people as opposed to Christianity or theistic faiths at large.

I did that because I know that there are many people who use the same label but decide that they'll just make up whatever belief system they want and still call it christian even though it makes no sense to do so.

But to say this is to still miss the entire point, though I think I addressed it above. It isn't "making up a belief system" and calling it Christian. It's doing what literally everyone else one earth does, which is have a starting point, e.g. some broad Christian belief, and going from there as you learn, think, and take in information from resources. 

What do you mean it makes no sense to do so? What would make sense? Would it be better to just have every singly label out there be so thoroughly specific that anyone who states that they subscribe to that label must also subscribe to every little detail that comes with that label? That's literally not how almost anything is at all in any sector of life. Not political parties, not religions, not even jobs, to an extent. Labels can be a starting point. When there are no really good, agreed upon definitions of something, that are well known to all involved, it's nonsense to assume that everyone should adhere to some "pure" definition of a label. It's the fundamental issue with labels.

I mean, how far can you stretch the term "christian" until it's no longer christian? Could you have a christian who doesn't believe in god, jesus or an afterlife? What's the base components of christianity that must be there for the term to makes any semblance of definitiory sense? What are the things that absolutely must not be there? Again, just the "we're not all like that" shirk of responsibility.

Is that what you or I were talking about? Were we talking about stretching the term that far? Not at all. I said it was logically consistent to believe in an all powerful being while simultaneously believing that you have free choice to act as you please, and to also not be just passing the buck to that being because you're "lazy" or "cowardly", to use your terms. I would imagine a large number of self-titled Christians buy into that sort of god. I also would love for you to answer that question, since it is you who are criticizing Christianity. I am sitting here saying it's broad, and broader than you're giving credit for. You clearly get very upset by the whole "responsibility" thing, which I just don't get. There has to be some appreciation for the fact that people don't all get together to discuss exactly what beliefs they are going to have and then agree that they will only say those are their beliefs, or drop the label. You're never going to get anything resembling that uniformity. 

It's not a shirk of responsibility. What responsibility are you even talking about? It's an understanding, acceptance and embrace of the reality of diverse points of view. It's a reasonable approach, as opposed to the unreasonable, rigid, "everyone with a label should have the exact same definitions" approach.

I took the kernel of what is largely considered christian and looked at it's base logic and how the Shroud of Turin is connected to it. Sorry if being really specific equates to a blanket judgement on an entire group of people in your mind. It certainly equates to judgement of a group of people, just a really specific group of people.

No, you did not take the "kernel", you caricatured what is probably a small fraction of what is considered Christian. It was not remotely clear from your post that you were specifically attempting to connect the Shroud to your specified group of Christians. Again, it read like a long and angry rant against Christianity. You can continue to say that that wasn't what you meant, but that's how it read, and I'm clearly not the only one who thinks that. You were being "really specific" about nothing. You stated the beliefs and then said "Christians", and expanded to other religions too, at least once. 

You literally said "I've yet to meet even a single example of a 'humble christian'." How is that specific? In the paragraph where you said that, the only limiting terms are "all the Christians [you've] met". That isn't a real limit. You never said, "Christians who believe the following..." You just said "Christians." 

And, you cast stones at the entire group explicitly when you said: "And then when members of their group inevitably acts like the dictator they believe in, the best they can do it say, 'oh well, we're not all like that." In no way at all does that sound like you're criticizing only a specific subset of Christians with a "specific" belief. You say "the dictator they believe in", which to me seems clearly to be saying that all Christians believe in what you're calling a dictator. You also are still criticizing any Christians who say (legitimately and fairly) "we're not all like that". Your criticism is not limited to what you're trying to spin as some really specific group. 

Perhaps if others outside that specific group don't want to share the problems and drama caused by that group, maybe they should either 
A: officially remove that group from their organization or 
B: stop using the same name.

Of course in order to do either of those they'd need to have some sort of strict definition of what a christian even is and who gets to be one in the first place. So until that happens, have fun having the good ones lumped in with the bad.

Get off your high horse. Obviously neither of those is realistic or feasible. It's also completely unrealistic, and inane, to suggest that something should have a very strict definition and if you don't fit the definition to a T then you're out. If you think that you're living in some fantasy world and not appreciating how any human group is or the fundamental flaw with labels. That isn't gonna happen. So guess what? Much to your chagrin, it seems you'll simply have to deal with your ire at people (again, in totally legitimate fashion) saying, "well, that might be what some Christians believe, but I and other Christians do not", because that the reality of it. We don't live in this magical, idealistic world where everything is nice and neat and there's going to be some perfect definition of Christianity, with Christianity police who will politely remove those who don't adhere to exactly those beliefs if they don't politely remove themselves first. 

I have no issue having the good lumped in with the bad. That's how it's going to be. But what I have an issue with is when people take any group and try to broadly criticize them ("pathetic, narcissistic, lazy cowards") without a hint of self awareness or appreciation for the inherent diversity therein. Rather than try to accept the diversity as something that is just going to be the case, you've mocked it and called it fallacious. Instead of trying to appreciate that those things exists, and that they don't render the entire thing a sham, unless you consider virtually every human enterprise a sham, you've just angrily dismissed it. You're being ridiculously overly rigid and unrealistic if you're suggesting that there should be some uniform, pure version of Christianity agreed upon if people want to avoid being criticized like you have done here. In a very real sense, while going on and on about responsibility, rather than being nuanced and articulating your views better, it seems like you're content to just slam a huge group of people without that added distinctions and then blame them because you're too "lazy" to be more specific. 

It's like you're saying "well if they don't want me to criticize them broadly then they should fix themselves to my whim, instead of me just being a little more nuanced when I criticize them."

Oh you don't think the videos are good enough do you? Fantastic, go pick out specific points you think are wrong and we can discuss them in another topic. Otherwise what's the point in you even bringing it up? Or is hand waving them away as mere internet opinions the best intellectual defense you can muster?

This is a good example of you missing my entire point. While I do appreciate your dismissive and all-knowing arrogance, which Silence appropriately called out, I was not at all criticizing the videos' content. Earlier you accused me of not reading your posts. Have you read mine?  

What I said was that the two videos you linked to are not the end-all-be-all, the clear smoking gun "proving" your point. I said it's not an objective thing. The two videos certainly may support what you're saying. But you did not present them in a way that made clear that you understand that this isn't some objective, undebatable thing where you might not be right. You have said nothing to change that. You've been arrogant and acting like you are the prime source of knowledge here. Like I said, Silence specifically noted that. This is subjective, and two different Youtube channels' videos don't change that. 

You wrote "But don't take my word for it... [Youtubers] have done extensive analyses of the psychology underlying deific religions." That doesn't read like some thoughtful, balanced response. It reads like "well, if you don't believe me, even though I'm right, here are two more videos that agree with me and reinforce that I'm right." It isn't about right or wrong. It's about appreciating the diversity and nature of the thing, which I certainly think you do not, or at least you have not presented your thoughts in a way that would allow someone to think you do. Instead, it seems like you have some real disdain and dismissiveness for those who disagree with you about this.

I never critiqued the merits of the videos, as you seem to think is the case. The point of bringing it up is to challenge you on thinking that it's your way or the high way here, and that two Youtube videos don't change the fact that it isn't your way or the high way. They don't change that this is subjective and not objective. They don't change that you're not the sole enforcer of reason or right here. So what I've done is not "hand wave them away as mere internet opinions." I did nothing of the sort. I wrote, verbatim, "...two Youtube channels doing this analysis does not mean that it is some objective thing with a clear truth..." Maybe you should go back and read what was written instead of reflexively snapping back and critiquing my ability to raise an "intellectual defense."

Also of note is that the videos you shared and your presentation of them further backs up what I'm saying about your lack of specificity. You said they do analysis of the psychology underlying "deific religions." You didn't say, of Christians who believe this set of things I'm talking about. You didn't even limit it to Christianity. You shared two videos discussing what you see as serious problems for "deific religions" at large. That is, like most of the rest of your post, not specific at all.

One of the keys here for me is also, what is the point of trying to discuss implications of the legitimacy of the Shroud if you're only talking about a small fraction of Christians at large? If the Shroud were discovered to be legitimate, I would think it would have implications even beyond Christianity. But if you're trying to say that you were only intending to discuss the Shroud's impact on just one portion of Christians (and again, there is little to nothing to support that that's what you were doing - seems much more like you had an axe to grind), that just seems like a really bizarre approach. It would have much more far reaching implications than just any one specific subset of Christianity.

but when there are serious theological debates within Christian circles over a wide variety of Christian issues, it can hardly be said with any sense of intellectual honesty that there is one "true" from of Christianity. 

How can you have a debate about christian issues when you can't even decide what christian is? I'd ask what a christian issue is but that would just be redundant.

How you could claim that your post is so specific and then try to tie it to implications from the Shroud is beyond me.

Well in order for the shroud to be legit there had to be a Jesus and if there was a Jesus there's a god and if there's a god,  etc etc.

but it's a legitimate statement to say that there is hardly a "true" Christianity, at least in a broad sense, beyond maybe "believes in Jesus Christ as god" or maybe a bit more than that.

Well that's my baseline which is what I have a problem with, deism, the very idea of a "supreme being", so apparently even  according to you I've been just as specific I've been saying I was.

it's odd that you'd accuse me of not reading your posts. Do you read your own posts? There is absolutely nothing in the post I quoted earlier suggesting that you're intending to target a very specific group of people as opposed to Christianity or theistic faiths at large.

Oh really...

From post #20 on page 2

:::EDIT2:::

Oh and to be clear I'm not saying I don't care about "religious people's" perspective. I don't care about an individual person's perspective if they think that rape and etc are loving because by definition it means they don't care about their potential/real/hypothetical victim's perspective. So why should I care about theirs? Treat thy neighbor like thyself and all that. It just so happens that the vast majority of those types are religious and are doing it for religious reasons.

Not specific enough? Giant blanket accusation of an entire religious group rather than individuals within it? Sure it was an edit but it's more than old enough that surely you would've seen it if you'd bothered to look, check the last edited date too in case you're suspicious that I recently put it in there.

How about this...

From post #37 on page 4

I will never respect any argument that apologizes for  and/or any person who materially supports such tyrannical ideologies and their proven detrimental effects on others, period.

Hmmm... arguments that apologise for and people who materially support? Yeah that sounds real blankety don't it? I mean it doesn't include people who support ideologies that aren't about deities, such as those that define god as a neutral energy field or Buddhists who says it's about personal development. It doesn't  include people who believe that there is a god out there but do not follow it or pay into it's churches or anything. So that cuts out in incredible number of spiritualists right there. It only includes those that believe in and follow an all powerful being and more specifically one that they believe can and will punish and/or reward people or otherwise have any influence in this or any other possible plane of existence based on it's own personal preference, thus making it a tyrant. And thus making the ideology tyrannical.

I said it was logically consistent to believe in an all powerful being while simultaneously believing that you have free choice to act as you please,

No it isn't, if they're all powerful then they can take away your free will any time they please. Meaning you only have it until they whimsically decide to remove it one day. Furthermore there are examples of this sort of thing happening down here in the real world. Like banks who will shut off  peoples bank accounts or ability to get one for having jobs that are legal but considered "High risk" or "immoral"  such as pornstars and gun sellers. Why could this happen? Because the bank had the power to, nothing more nothing less. Try doing that with someone's cryptocurrency wallet. Thus anyone who believes that they are in control of their money when it's sitting in a bank are mistaken, they are only in control as long as the bank doesn't whimsically decide to take that control away. A god is infinity times worse, it requires no pretense, no justification, just a whim. Believing that a god is out there and could do that is one thing, actually desiring it for yourself and other people is sickening.

Get off your high horse. Obviously neither of those is realistic or feasible. It's also completely unrealistic, and inane, to suggest that something should have a very strict definition and if you don't fit the definition to a T then you're out. 

Funny because most reputable organizations down here in the real world do exactly that, they have policies and records and codes of conduct and will absolutely kick people out for not abiding by them. Are you telling me that Christianity, a religion so old and with so many members couldn't get that together when all these other groups can? I mean China has a billion people and it manages to have social insurance numbers, passports, and all that sort of stuff. But christianity couldn't keep track of a few things here and there like what a christian even is?

Or is that just too much work. Or maybe you just want it to be a disreputable organization? I mean, there's people running around with the same label as you causing drama and smearing the reputation of that label and you're telling me you can't be bothered to protect your own reputation? What do you just wanna sit back and soak up the praise from the guys giving out free surgeries  in third world countries but then complain  when someone asks you to deal with the guys throwing molotov cocktails at abortion centers?  Sounds pretty lazy and self entitled to me.

How am I or anyone else supposed to take that other than you admitting complicity in the intents and actions of those people? And if so, why should I see you as any different from them?

I mean take a look at Imam Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi, One of the guys trying to fix the problem of radical islam in Australia. I may dissagree with the whole Allah thing, I may see Islam as having even more severe structural problems than christianity or indeed most other deific religions, but I will absolutely respect this guy as a person for not handwaving the issue away and saying "we're not all like that" Especially since he's an Imam and is therefore extra vulnerable a a result.

I never critiqued the merits of the videos, as you seem to think is the case. The point of bringing it up is to challenge you on thinking that it's your way or the high way here, and that two Youtube videos don't change the fact that it isn't your way or the high way. 

Yeah I stated what I think, gave supporting evidence and examples of why with greater detail from people who did a better job than I could at explaining it. Even within what you said above about the base requirements of a christian that you stated those videos were more than relevant. I'll quote you again just to remind you

So too with Christianity or any other faith. Call it a fallacy all you want, but it's a legitimate statement to say that there is hardly a "true" Christianity, at least in a broad sense, beyond maybe "believes in Jesus Christ as god" or maybe a bit more than that.

Hmmm sounds pretty deific to me, I mean there's guy who is a god. Pretty hard to say that doesn't meet the definition of a deity don't you think? So yes the videos were relevant and you just handwaved them. Pretty clear cut.

So what I've done is not "hand wave them away as mere internet opinions." I did nothing of the sort. I wrote, verbatim, "...two Youtube channels doing this analysis does not mean that it is some objective thing with a clear truth..." 

Ok so how many youtube channels does it take before it does? How many opinions? Because that's how we determine the validity of an argument right? By number of people who say it? Not analysis of the content or anything because that would be crazy!

Your subjective beliefs become everyone's business when they are the explicit or implicit  basis for actions or inactions in the real world. How many atheists killed kids because they took them to faith healers instead of doctors. None, probably because they don't believe in that sort of thing. Hide behind your subjectivity all you want but it only proves my point. You could check the "Respecting beliefs | Why we should do no such thing" video I linked for a full explanation.

You said they do analysis of the psychology underlying "deific religions." You didn't say, of Christians who believe this set of things I'm talking about.

If a christian doesn't believe in a deity, I.e god, Yaweh, whatever, are they really a christian? Because according to you, no. At the base level, probably all christians believe in Jesus and god. So yeah it's pretty specific to what I'm talking about. If it happens that my specific definition hits a much larger amount of those who wear the christian label, that doesn't make it any less specific. It in fact makes me more accurate in my statements.

If the Shroud were discovered to be legitimate, I would think it would have implications even beyond Christianity.

Yeah, see, that's the entire point here. I don't think there's any genuine historical value to the Shroud of Turin beyond it's claimed story and thus connection to the Christian religion. Therefore the only reasons someone would want to try so hard to prove it's legitimacy is because they want to shove christianity in other people faces, not any genuine historical interest. The implications of that are incredibly grim for those who aren't christian and not something that I at least would want to subject even my worst enemy to. To actually want that reality for others is pretty sick.

Because realistically, what else could we learn out of the Shroud of Tuirin that we couldn't learn from any other random piece of cloth that might be from that time period? Why does it have to be the Shroud and not one of those other cloths that has all this reanalysis happening? What, are we going to learn some cool new facts about middle eastern weaving patterns of whatever B.C? Is that really worth such an extensive reanalysis? Are we gonna learn the DNA of some random dude from back then maybe? I mean it'd be interesting but is it worth all this? No, if you study the Shroud of Turin, you're trying to prove a pretty specific type of christianity, you're trying to prove Jesus, god, heaven, hell, all of that. Not love, compassion or any of that since those didn't come from Christianity and aren't it's defining features. You're trying to prove that Jesus died, he was resurrected, and there's a god up there judging all of us. That is the only value the Shroud of Turin has to scientific study.

If you disagree then please give me some other possibility to why someone would want to go through all this effort to try and overturn the existing carbon dating results and blood analysis and so on and so forth.