# Should atheists take the Shroud of Turin seriously? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 14, 2014, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680 "2014-03-14T10:11:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![protoboard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/fbc32d/32.png) [@protoboard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/protoboard)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/1 "2014-03-14T10:11:38Z")
It seems like science takes the Shroud rather seriously, though perhaps this is just because it’s been studied so long. Personally I think it’s just a very clever hoax, after all the 13th century in Italy was hardly the Stone Age, but who knows right? ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/2 "2014-03-14T10:42:31Z")
> [@protoboard](#): > > It seems like science takes the Shroud rather seriously What makes you think that? > [@](#): > > Personally I think it’s just a very clever hoax, after all the 13th century in Italy was hardly the Stone Age, but who knows right? Pretty much everyone except some religious nutters, actually. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/3 "2014-03-14T10:43:41Z")
What do you mean by “take seriously”? As much as we take seriously any garment purported to have been “worn” by a historically important Roman Empire-era person. If something plausibly rumored to be Caesar’s toga were around, it would be worthwhile that some experts do what they could to find out if that provenience were possible or probable (“definite” would be quite unlikely). Why should this be any different? ---
**Author:** ![FairyChatMom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fairychatmom/32/21906_2.png) [@FairyChatMom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FairyChatMom)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/4 "2014-03-14T10:47:55Z")
With the shroud or anything else related to someone’s beliefs, one needn’t take it seriously, but one should be courteous enough not to mock the believer. Asking questions about another’s beliefs doesn’t necessarily cross a line - it’s all in what and how you ask. You may never accept the other person’s point of view, but perhaps you can learn to understand it. Come to think of it, this could be applied to pretty much anything in life - musical preferences, lifestyle, literary choices. And, as often is the case, it comes down to “Don’t be a jerk.” So, no, no one \*has \*to take the Shroud of Turin seriously, but it’s really bad form to belittle someone who does. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/5 "2014-03-14T11:13:25Z")
> [@protoboard](#): > > It seems like science takes the Shroud rather seriously, As a self-appointed spokesman for all of science, let me assure you that no, we don’t. At least, not in the sense of “gosh, maybe this ‘miracle’ thing is true, after all! Let’s check it out!” What you’re seeing is simply that the shroud is a very rare situation where believers are willing to make an actual, testable claim - that this physical object is the manifestation of a supernatural miracle. Usually, such miracles are numinous and leave nothing at all behind - or at least nothing that is physically altered. So the shroud is a nearly unique opportunity to do a test and demonstrate that no such miracle occurred. Of course, as should have been expected, the actual facts don’t seem to have mattered to anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/6 "2014-03-14T12:52:59Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > As a self-appointed spokesman for all of science, let me assure you that no, we don’t. And as a self-appointed spokesman for all of art, nope ditto. If you’ll please look at the [hands,](http://www.angelusonline.org/images/articles/1990/March/Shroud_Turin_Hands.jpg) you’ll notice that they aren’t modeled very well, as you’d hope to do to pass a basic life drawing class (let alone like the bumps and open spaces you’d see if you were to lay a cloth on a set of bloody knuckles). They are more like a row of smooth, regular curves, like the hands in a Medieval illuminated manuscript. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/7 "2014-03-14T12:56:21Z")
> [@protoboard](#): > > **Should atheists take the Shroud of Turin seriously?** No. Nor should we take seriously anyone who _does_ take the Shroud of Turin seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/bc8723/32.png) [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unauthorized_Cinnamon)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/8 "2014-03-14T12:58:40Z")
\*\*protoboard \*\*may be thinking of the recent paper by some Italian (dare I guess committed Catholic?) scientists who are bending over backwards to explain away the carbon dating evidence by invoking [neutron particles released by rocks](http://depletedcranium.com/no-an-earthquake-did-not-create-the-shroud-of-turin-or-skew-carbon-dating/)crushed in an earthquake as the mechanism of imprint, as well as a confounding factor in the carbon dating. Of course they ignored all the evidence from other Palestinian artifacts of the time that date properly. And the fact that the image doesn’t remotely match what a shroud wrapped around a human would look like, but does match a cloth laid on a bas-relief. Oh, and Occam’s Razor has gone completely out the window. Plus also people so bunched in the panties to provide scientific evidence for this miracle amusingly forget that they’re talking about friggin’ _magic_. Just say, “It’s magic,” and leave science for people willing to examine their biases already! ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/9 "2014-03-14T13:00:43Z")
Nope. It was declared a fraud shortly after it was unveiled more than 700 years ago. Why would anyone, atheist or otherwise take seriously anything that even less advanced societies knew to be spurious? Even if it hadn’t been carbon dated to a time period more than 1k year AFTER it was supposed have been used,it still lacks any provenance for its claims.Atheists should treat it like the fraudulent piece of “artwork” that almost certainly is. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/10 "2014-03-14T13:18:52Z")
I don’t think theists need to take it seriously either. It’s like the Donation of Constantine - old enough to interesting, but still clearly a fake. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![lost4life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@lost4life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lost4life)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/11 "2014-03-14T13:23:24Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > And as a self-appointed spokesman for all of art, nope ditto. If you’ll please look at the [hands,](http://www.angelusonline.org/images/articles/1990/March/Shroud_Turin_Hands.jpg) you’ll notice that they aren’t modeled very well, as you’d hope to do to pass a basic life drawing class (let alone like the bumps and open spaces you’d see if you were to lay a cloth on a set of bloody knuckles). They are more like a row of smooth, regular curves, like the hands in a Medieval illuminated manuscript. To me this looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/12 "2014-03-14T13:26:16Z")
Um… what? I’m sorry, but we can rationally categorize the people who believe the shroud of Turin is meaningful in the same group as those who believe in Nessie or Bigfoot. It’s a confirmed hoax. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/13 "2014-03-14T13:54:40Z")
> [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](#): > > \*\*protoboard \*\*may be thinking of the recent paper by some Italian (dare I guess committed Catholic?) scientists who are bending over backwards to explain away the carbon dating evidence by invoking [neutron particles released by rocks](http://depletedcranium.com/no-an-earthquake-did-not-create-the-shroud-of-turin-or-skew-carbon-dating/)crushed in an earthquake as the mechanism of imprint, as well as a confounding factor in the carbon dating. Of course they ignored all the evidence from other Palestinian artifacts of the time that date properly. And the fact that the image doesn’t remotely match what a shroud wrapped around a human would look like, but does match a cloth laid on a bas-relief. Oh, and Occam’s Razor has gone completely out the window. Plus also people so bunched in the panties to provide scientific evidence for this miracle amusingly forget that they’re talking about friggin’ _magic_. Just say, “It’s magic,” and leave science for people willing to examine their biases already! I guess this is [Cecil’s point](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/518/did-jesus-really-exist-and-whats-with-the-shroud-of-turin): [QUOTE=Cecil Adams] Then in 1986 the Archbishop of Turin announced that the Pope had given his permission to perform carbon-14 tests on the shroud, which would answer the biggest remaining question: how old was the thing? A postage-stamp-size piece of the shroud was snipped off and samples sent to laboratories in three different countries. In 1988 the archbishop announced the results: the linen cloth had been made between 1260 and 1390 AD. Whatever it was, it was not the burial cloth of Jesus. Not everybody bought this conclusion. Harvard University physicist Thomas Phillips, writing in the journal Nature, argued that if Christ had in fact been resurrected while wrapped in the shroud, a phenomenon known as “neutron flux” would have occurred, throwing off the results of the carbon-14 dating. But come on. If we start from the premise that a miracle occurred, you can arrive at any conclusion you want. Most people, and certainly most scientists, have accepted the idea that the shroud was made not long before it was first put on display in 1357. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/14 "2014-03-14T14:36:16Z")
To me, the REAL miracle is the [Virgin Mary in Grilled Cheese Sandwich](http://seekingcanaan.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/virgin-mary-grilled-cheese.gif). Explain that, atheists! ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/15 "2014-03-14T15:14:54Z")
Even the Pope doesn’t take the shroud seriously. Although, he did maintain that it’s an important icon in religious history. And its symbolic importance.\* Not the current pope but a previous one, I can’t remember which one. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/16 "2014-03-14T15:22:34Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > Even the Pope doesn’t take the shroud seriously. Although, he did maintain that it’s an important icon in religious history. And its symbolic importance.\* > > Not the current pope but a previous one, I can’t remember which one. Hardly matters, as which atheists takes the pope seriously? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/17 "2014-03-14T17:02:43Z")
Yes. It’s an 800 year old piece of art. Why not treat it seriously on that basis alone? Ah. Because mocking feels better. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/18 "2014-03-14T17:09:46Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Hardly matters, as which atheists takes the pope seriously? \ Francis appears to be a good, honest and sincere man who wants to use his considerable power and influence improve the lives of all who will listen, and takes the charges against his church very seriously - which can’t be said of the last two papa-sans. I feel the same way about the Dalai Lama and a number of other honest, open-faithed religious leaders. But then, as a small-a atheist I don’t feel any need to demolish others’ beliefs to ‘prove’ mine. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/19 "2014-03-14T17:24:08Z")
Nobody should take it seriously, neither atheists nor believers of other religions nor Christians. Look at it from God’s point of view - why would God drop this one piece of falsifiable evidence into the one true religion, yet have all the followers and prophets speak of needing faith, and making a leap? Looking for a piece of incontrovertible evidence that ‘proves’ Christianity is missing the point. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/20 "2014-03-14T17:41:24Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Yes. It’s an 800 year old piece of art. Why not treat it seriously on that basis alone? > > Ah. Because mocking feels better. :smack: Nobody is being mocked, to my knowledge, for treating it as a work of art. They are being mocked for treating it as an artifact of supernatural origin. Surely you knew that, didn’t you? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680.md?page=2)