Freethought or Cafeteria Thinking?

Here is how Ronald Bruce Meyer celebrated yesterday on his Freethought Almanac with extraordinary cafeteria thinking. Maybe that is what Freethought means: pick out fact you like and ignore the rest:

imageToday, August 25, but in 1978, the famous “Shroud of Turin,” venerated by Catholics as the burial cloth of the crucified Jesus, went on public display for the first time in 45 years. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia is parsimonious in its credulity: “…the claim is made that it is the actual ‘clean linen cloth’ in which Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Jesus Christ (Matthew 27:59).” In 1988, a team of experts from three universities each independently tested and dated the cloth to around 1350. Joe Nickell, who collaborated with scientific and technical experts on his Inquest on the Shroud of Turin (2nd Ed., 1992) and Walter McCrone, a microchemist, in his Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (1999), both demonstrate that the shroud is a medieval fake. In his article on the shroud from the Skeptic’s Dictionary , Robert Todd Carroll sums up: “Even if it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the shroud originated in Jerusalem and was used to wrap up the body of Jesus, so what? Would that prove Jesus rose from the dead? I don’t think so. To believe anyone rose from the dead can’t be based on physical evidence, because resurrection is a physical impossibility.”

2 thoughts on “Freethought or Cafeteria Thinking?”

  1. In layman’s terms it`s called “Having your blinders on“. It is quite clear Meyer has based his impressions of the Shroud exclusively from the writings of J. Nickell…An unfortunate decision. But one that many I`ve come across have done. I`ve dealt with many such people (Nincompoops, I like to call them) on youtube and other blogs. People who are too lazy or just too simple-minded to understand; One must read from all sources of information before coming to a decision, which includes all pro and con opinions and viewpoints. One also wonders who these “scientific and technical“ people are, which Nickells “collaborated with“? Does Nickells have the scientific or technical background to actually make the claims he does?…I would think not, infact I know he doesn`t, but that doesn`t seem to matter, aslong as people stay rigid in their research practices. Writers such as Nickells, Freeman and such are a huge detriment to the true scientific, historical and archaelogical facts, concerning the Shroud, being spread to the masses and their arguments must be dealt with, with much diligence, or we will have a world filled with Nincompoops.

    R

Comments are closed.