# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/41 "2014-03-15T13:39:00Z")
No, I’m not. I’m not sure why you think that, or even which part of my post you’re referring to. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/42 "2014-03-15T13:48:41Z")
At the time I said I wasn’t sure what you were saying. The idea of someone throwing soot on the shroud messing up the carbon dating gave me that idea. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/43 "2014-03-15T14:01:05Z")
In a fire, soot can go all over. It wouldn’t require someone throwing soot on the shroud. The half-life of Carbon 14 is 5730 years, which is longer than I realized. That’s long compared to 700 years, and you’d only get an average age based on the proportion of new and old Carbon atoms. There probably wouldn’t be enough soot left on the cloth to affect the answer much. If an item were several Carbon-14 half lives old, a little modern contamination could throw off the results by a disproportionately large amount. Wikipedia has [a good description](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating#Contamination) of this. I was imagining the C-14 half life being a lot shorter than it is, to where this might be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/44 "2014-03-15T14:30:23Z")
Ah so you are rationalizing. Those who want to believe something generally engage in that sort of argument. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/45 "2014-03-15T14:33:11Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Partly true: the part that was carbon dated was damaged in a fire, but was not from any part to which later fabric had been added. That would render the exercise pointless. > > Being burned in a fire wouldn’t change the results, as the tests are for carbon nuclei, not carbon atoms. Fire is ordinary atomic chemistry, not nuclear chemistry. Nothing in an ordinary fire could conceivably turn carbon-14 atoms into carbon-12 atoms, or vice-versa. The repair of the shroud would change the results, since they added medieval fabric to a much older garment. It’s quite possible the carbon dating was ‘correct’, the problem is that the portion they surveyed was not representative of the shroud. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/46 "2014-03-15T14:36:14Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Given the amazing number of examples that we have of resurrections that didn’t also have evidence of neutron flux . . . it’s a miracle that no scientist thought of this before Phillips! > > CMC fnord! He’s right though. We _don’t_ have a lot of examples of resurrections (atheists would say we have _none_), so we can’t really pretend to know what would happen surrounding them. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/47 "2014-03-15T14:47:52Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > The repair of the shroud would change the results, since they added medieval fabric to a much older garment. It’s quite possible the carbon dating was ‘correct’, the problem is that the portion they surveyed was not representative of the shroud. All of which was taken into consideration by the testers, and why they took multiple samples from different parts of the cloth. All sample dates agreed within narrow error bars. ---
**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 15, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/48 "2014-03-15T16:21:06Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > Soot from the fire landing on the cloth would add their “newer” carbon nuclei into the mix, and could conceivably alter results. Whether they took measures to remove the soot, or estimate the amount of soot present so they could correct for the contamination, I don’t know. > > Are there other burial shrouds still around from the 1300s and from Christ’s time? Have any of these been examined for faint imprints? The ratio of soot:cloth needed to throw the dating of by _12 centuries_ is about 2:1. [http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin](http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin) > [@](#): > > In 1980, using electron microscopy and x-ray diffraction, McCrone found red ochre (iron oxide, hematite) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide); the electron microprobe analyzer found iron, mercury, and sulfur on a dozen of the blood-image area samples. The results fully confirmed Dr. McCrone’s results and further proved the image was painted twice – once with red ochre, followed by vermilion to enhance the blood-image areas. > > In 1987, carbon dating at three prestigious laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO 2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see ‘Amount of Modern Biological Contaminant Required to Raise the Date of a 36 A.D. Shroud’). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories. This sort of thing has been examined, and found to be exactly what it sounded like - an ad-hoc hypothesis thrown up in an attempt to retain the object’s age. However, it doesn’t change the fact that there is no reason to believe that the object ever _was_ younger than the middle ages. Sure, _if_ it was that old, then maybe this sort of thing could explain the faulty date (except, of course, that it realistically could not have). ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/49 "2014-03-15T17:22:44Z")
From the same link: > [@](#): > > Forensic tests for blood were uniformly negative on fibers from the blood-image tapes. Lots of _paint_ detected, no _blood._ In other words, the chemical content of the _Mona Lisa._ That about wraps up this piece of art. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/50 "2014-03-15T17:27:24Z")
> [@FairyChatMom](#): > > 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. I agree with this and I’m a Christian. The Shroud is an interesting piece of art, but it is no older than medieval. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/51 "2014-03-15T18:22:06Z")
Taking the shroud itself seriously? Nah. Taking people’s belief that it’s the burial shroud of Yeshua Ben Yosef? Yeah, I take that seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/52 "2014-03-15T20:16:16Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > The repair of the shroud would change the results, since they added medieval fabric to a much older garment. It’s quite possible the carbon dating was ‘correct’, the problem is that the portion they surveyed was not representative of the shroud. As noted above, this was observed and accounted for. The soot argument, too, fails, for reasons posted here. Also, **musicat** pointed out that the coloration has been identified as paint. Others have noted the depiction is clearly an illustration, not a transference, definitely not a photograph, and that other shrouds exist. There’s also some evidence that shrouds, in Judea around 30 A.D. were wrapped around the body – the so-called “winding sheet” – and were not folded over the body lengthwise, only once. If one is engaged in an argument to support the Bible, it is worth noting that the Bible says Jesus was wrapped in two cloths, one for the body and one for the head. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/53 "2014-03-15T20:17:55Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Ah so you are rationalizing. Those who want to believe something generally engage in that sort of argument. Wow. No, I’m not rationalizing. You seem to have an emotional response to this subject, to come up that response. I guess that’s to be expected when mentioning soot from a fire getting on something leads you to jump to “someone throwing soot”. At any rate, instead of playing coy, you could point out what part of the post you replied to you disagree with. > [@Budget Player Cadet](#): > > The ratio of soot:cloth needed to throw the dating of by 12 centuries is about 2:1. I _already said_ that I was imagining the C-14 half life being a lot shorter than it is. And after looking up what the C-14 half-life is, I _already said_ that there probably wouldn’t be enough soot left on the cloth to affect the answer much. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/54 "2014-03-15T21:23:37Z")
> [@protoboard](#): > > 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? The one thing that stands out about the Shroud of Turin is the fact that according to the Bible account the head cover was folded and separate from the rest of the wraps, so the head part would be fainter than the rest, plus it didn’t bleed through the cloth. I also understood from a Jewish person the wrappings would be in strips, not like the Shroud is one big long cloth. Another thing I wonder about is why none of Jesus’s close family, friends, or apostles didn’t expect a resurrection. The Mary’s came to anoint a dead body, Mary Magdalene didn’t recognize him, and asked where he was buried, Peter and other apostles were surprised to hear he had risen and ran to the tomb. I would think if they believed he would rise from the dead he would not hang around the tomb waiting for some one to show up, but would have gone directly to his mother and friends. en come in through a wall to where his apostles were hiding. plus the contradiction that Thomas had to put his fingers in the wounds before he believed, sounds like an after thought to try to convince others it was Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/55 "2014-03-15T21:55:37Z")
Why…it’s almost as if it’s not a real relic at all!! ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/56 "2014-03-15T22:14:28Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The one thing that stands out about the Shroud of Turin is the fact that according to the Bible account the head cover was folded and separate from the rest of the wraps, so the head part would be fainter than the rest, plus it didn’t bleed through the cloth. I also understood from a Jewish person the wrappings would be in strips, not like the Shroud is one big long cloth. Another thing I wonder about is why none of Jesus’s close family, friends, or apostles didn’t expect a resurrection. The Mary’s came to anoint a dead body, Mary Magdalene didn’t recognize him, and asked where he was buried, Peter and other apostles were surprised to hear he had risen and ran to the tomb. > > I would think if they believed he would rise from the dead he would not hang around the tomb waiting for some one to show up, but would have gone directly to his mother and friends. en come in through a wall to where his apostles were hiding. plus the contradiction that Thomas had to put his fingers in the wounds before he believed, sounds like an after thought to try to convince others it was Jesus. While I’m sure you and I agree that the Shroud of Turin is not an authentic burial cloak of a 30AD corpse, let alone a god, I must point out that everything you are claiming happened (Mary came to the tomb, Peter was surprised, Thomas with wounds, etc.) is, as far as we know, a made-up, fictional story with no corroboration from independent sources and describes supernatural events that are unlikely to have happened. In other words, saying that Mary came to anoint a dead body and found an empty tomb is tantamount to saying that St. George came to feed the dragon after rescuing Rapunzel, delivering a poison apple to Snow White’s witch, and petting the unicorn in the garden. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/57 "2014-03-15T22:56:28Z")
Piltdown Man was real though, right? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/58 "2014-03-15T22:58:04Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > . . . tantamount to saying that St. George came to feed the dragon after rescuing Rapunzel, delivering a poison apple to Snow White’s witch, and petting the unicorn in the garden. You just take all the fun out of everything! Thank goodness I’ve still got Santa Claus! ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/59 "2014-03-15T23:56:17Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > You just take all the fun out of everything! Thank goodness I’ve still got Santa Claus! The Easter Bunny will get you for that. ---
**Author:** ![Kenm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kenm)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680/60 "2014-03-16T00:45:42Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > 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! Easy. It’s [**Bette Davis**](http://www.examiner.com/article/one-good-picture-is-all-i-need-bette-davis-had-more-than-100). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-atheists-take-the-shroud-of-turin-seriously/683680.md?page=4)