Hello Athiests!

[happilycatholic]

Hey, if anyone wants a break from CAF and wants to laugh, just watch an episode of “Reba”. This show is already in reruns and I’m just now finding it. It is so brainlessly funny!

Anyhoo,

This question is to Atheists, how many atheists/agnostics have you run into that were never theists at all? And…have any of them ever been other-than-Christian God believers and decided to become non-theists? Like Wicca to atheist/agnostic.

I won’t hide the reason behind the question. What I’m wondering is do people stop believing in God more or just never believe in God to begin with? And, if the former is true, why? Do those who stop believing in God do so because God failed to prove Himself or because there’s no scientific proof?

Truth is, I’ve never met an atheist/agnostic that wasn’t first Christian or Jewish. It seems that what causes a person to begin to question God’s existance is a point where the person thought they were failed by God.

I guess I could’ve just asked, how many people become atheists because they feel like God failed them?

I’m only asking because that’s how I felt before becoming catholic. I can’t tell my whole story here but I felt like I was abandoned by God and so I didn’t believe he existed. Okay, I know it’s not that simple and no one is that simple minded, but it does lead to justification through reason. If I had continued on that path into my more “mature” (ha, ha) years, I might have been able to justify and reason myself into atheism.

I’m not trying to minimalize anyone’s spirituality or life choices, but I’m curious because as I said, everyone I’ve ever met who didn’t believe in God have a story and then proceeded to build a belief system that supported the reason behind it.

 

[aileron]

This question is to Atheists, how many atheists/agnostics have you run into that were never theists at all?

In a sense, I was never a theist. From an early age I questioned and doubted. By age eleven I was some kind of deist / pantheist hybrid and left it at that hardly ever thinking about it. I no longer see a case or point in deism / pantheism.

Most atheists I run into came from a Christian or Jewish tradition, but I don’t know what they actually believed if anything.

 

[josie_L]

I never said anything about a “law” – that’s your term. Of course a law must be delineated in “absolute” terms – it’s in the definition of the word “law.”

My claim is that all moral decisions, whether by Christians, atheists, or followers of any religion, are guided by conscience and conscience alone.

How can you say that it is guided by conscience alone?, are you not surrounded by a society with mores?, are you not nurtured by a family for most of whom derived their morality from a religion of some kind? My parents raised me Catholic and I was brought up to believe and follow through on christian morality, I did not by accident learn about morality, it was not trial and error that reinforced my conscience (although it can help) but my faith in Jesus whose morality I sought to mimic.

Also define for me conscience, and where it derives from? And then tell me why people have different consciences if as David Hume stated all humans by nature possess some sort of standard for morality?

Presumably most deeds that benefit you are not immoral. But if your conscience is underdeveloped or perverse enough to let you rationalize harmful actions on a regular basis, then there’s not much I can do to stop you from such justifications. However, if you commit acts that offend my conscience enough, or the combined consciences of members of society enough, then of course you will end up in jail or whatever.

The key word is “presumably”, do not presume. There are many people who benefit from doing wrong, as such, I think your statement a little naive and impractical.

P.S. What I have stated has remained, Atheism provides no universal moral standard.

 

[josie_L]

Morality wasn’t invented by Judeo-Christianity. Even dogs have emotions, travel in packs, and form very primitive rules of social conduct (within the constraints of their intellectual ability). Most mammals care for their young, form bonds with mates, and in the case of dogs form bonds with their owners (and protect them to the death in many cases). Do dogs have a soul? Are they governed by natural law … and if so then what the heck is natural law?

Are you really proposing that no society had laws proscribing murder, theft, etc. before the Old Testament was written & distributed? I assume your not (and I assume you have a sufficient grasp of history to know this is not the case). I assume you propose that this “natural law” you assert exists resides within man in the form of a soul, which is our spiritual medium to god.

However, the fact is the only thing we know is true is that if there is any sort of natural law it’s dictated by nature – in other words our biology.

Let’s face it third or twelfth century Christianity can hardly be compared to contemporary Christian mores. Back then it was perfectly within the bounds of so called natural or divine moral law to kill and conquer in the name of religion. Jews were treated like cattle, restricted to ghettos, and forced to wear identification badges. Blacks were herded into ships, carted off to southern plantations, and treated as inhumanely as any people on earth were ever treated. All of this under the blind eye of so called religious men (or in some cases it was the church itself that did these things).

So please folks … save the preaching about moral or natural law; because it’s just another old myth. Law has always been formed by us & no one else. We make our world better or worse. There’s no invisible devil to shift our culpability to when we screw up; just as there’s no invisible god guiding our actions to give credit to when we get things right.

Whether reality is good news or harsh … it’s reality all the same. What do we say to those who just lost a loved one? Obviously it’s easy to say they’re in a better place (and I’ve had to comfort people who experienced loss & I always did the easy thing and said something like they’re in a better place or whatever to provide them comfort). No one wants the story to end … it’s our nature to want to survive and want our loved ones to survive (we might say this survival instinct is a form of natural law).

I suspect mankind will need religion until science provides a real alternative to the dreams of religion (which are great dreams). Will we one day be able to travel back in time? I seen a great show on NOVA where physicists are trying to build a time machine (a sort of mini-worm hole) as we speak. Will we one day live indefinitely? With genetic science, nanotechnology, and all the rest I don’t doubt it. Will we finally perfect quantum computing and learn how to control our atmosphere? Will we perfect genetically modified food technology to ensure our long term survival (one day mankind will face something like the eruption of a super-volcano & we will need technology to grow foods with little or virtually no sunlight). I even remember reading somewhere that scientists teleported an electron (or some sort of sub-atomic particle) through space. Obviously it’s a stretch to think we can do this with a mammal one day – but this laptop I’m typing this post on was unimaginable to our founding fathers (maybe with the exception of Ben Franklin ). Will we learn how to download the contents of our brain onto a computer one day? There are scientists trying to figure out how to do this right now. Heck medical scientists just invented an artificial womb they think can be used to produce human infants within the next ten years.

Scary stuff to many people (particularly religious people) – but incredible and wonderful to me. I place my hope on ourselves … but I guess for most mythology will have to suffice until there’s a tangible alternative to allay their fear of death.

I hope you enjoy this futuristic sterile environment with its emphasis on technology instead of human relations.

P.S. I wonder what moral issues we’ll arrive at if we create a time machine?

 

[josie_L]

You don’t strike me as the cynical type, so I hope you’ll accept my explanation at face value. I will try to explain in more clarity.

I would also like to point out that is is not “me and the Church”. The implication here is that I’m on my own vs. the indefatigable institution. On most of the issues I’m at odds with the Church it is more like the greater part of humanity (even in some cases the majority of Catholics) vs. the Church hierarchy.

It is no concern to me what pronouncements the RCC make regarding internal matters. If one day the Church were to amend or alter its position on transubstantiation, I would not bother to argue it one way or the other. It’s really none of my concern what the RCC teaches its members about the use of birth control or IVF or physician assisted suicide or a host of other issues. They can choose to follow the direction of the leaders or not.

What I do care about is when the RCC leadership, indeed the leadership of many religious organizations, attempts to influence secular laws. I think that religious leaders in a pluralistic society have a role in debating policy making for secular laws, but with caveat. My position is, I think, equitable:

When dealing with secular government law, any and all groups wishing to influence public policy should provide verifiable secular reasons for their argument. Yet this is often not the case. I hear arguments for how IVF “violates the rights of the embryo.” Great. Tell me how. What are the reasons for this. Instead, they go unexplained perhaps with the old unspoken expectation of deference to the cloth.

When we are told it’s immoral help a person end life even though they may have only weeks or months to live and are in abject agony, I don’t want to hear why secular laws should be such and such a way because (if we are to be honest about it) some group is saying that they know God’s will. It’s perfectly evident from history that these groups can and have gotten it wrong (assuming the newer position is right).

Various religious leaders attempt to rely on an unspoken, traditional expectation of deference. Non believers are astutely aware of this, but it should be a concern for all believers too. No denomination in this country holds a majority population. Religiously speaking, we are a plurality. If religious group A gets to invoke the privilege of deference rather than secular reasons, what is to stop group B, whose positions are objectionable to group A from doing the same once they can sway political power more?

Do you really think this? I’m trying to find a peaceful co-existence. I’m trying to argue my points and learn yours, but it only seems like I can’t get past certain Church history because certain people are astonishingly defensive (not you though, thank you very much).

Put another way, I’m not interested in taking God off of money and out of the pledge. I’m not interested in feigning psychological trauma every time someone says a sectarian prayer in a government function. I can walk by a Ten Commandments tableau in front of a courthouse without breaking into hysterics. History, tradition, culture, ethics, etc. of which religion has an important role can be a valid secular argument.

What I want in return is a shift in attitude in public debates about secular laws. Honestly, I’ve lost count the number of times I’ve heard the priest and pastor (who often disagree) tell us why God wants or does not want a law to pass. If they want to tell us what they think God wants, that’s great. Until we hear secular reasons for secular laws, they should not expect serious considerations of the I know God’s fiat argument.

Have you read any encyclicals to derive the reasonings behind the Church’s stance on certain issues so to gain an understanding? And the laws are secular but the issues are not (the Church however provides more than one perspective - religious, philosophical, natural . . . to explain their position). And furthermore, you confuse your bible believing pastors with the intellectual might of a Church that has survived two millenia. I’m sure you can find the answers somewhere (they have archives) on the Vatican website.

 

[happilycatholic]

I hope you enjoy this futuristic sterile environment with its emphasis on technology instead of human relations.

P.S. I wonder what moral issues we’ll arrive at if we create a time machine?

Here’s food for thought: If natural selection is responsible for the way we use emotion, then why in the world is there STILL emotion? Obviously emotion creates a problem (i.e. murder, depression, divorce, abuse, shall I go on?)

Natural Selection defined: The process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring

Using this definition, why in the name of all that’s science, would nature “choose” to preserve negative emotion? And by the looks of things, nature is producing more and more corruptness than goodness so what does this mean for natural selection?

For that matter, why would nature evolve us into emotional beings to begin with?

 

[josie_L]

why do you view this as a contradiction? The Romans started out as well behaved and disciplined pagans. They wound up as a rich, powerful, and decadent society. In the mix there was Christianity (during the latter empire period). Regardless of Christianities influence on Rome (which is debated by scholars) the important point is that Christianity had nothing to do with Rome’s culture early in its history (and its discipline, strong moral fiber, and family focus) – **since of course early Rome predates Christianity. **

Yes, but it does not predate Judaism, remember, the first Christians were Jews.

P.S. And how can anyone doubt Christianity’s influence on Rome, it took three centuries for them to bring Rome to its knees without firing a single shot. I would think that’s influence enough.

 

[josie_L]

Here’s food for thought: If natural selection is responsible for the way we use emotion, then why in the world is there STILL emotion? Obviously emotion creates a problem (i.e. murder, depression, divorce, abuse, shall I go on?)

Natural Selection defined: The process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring

Using this definition, why in the name of all that’s science, would nature “choose” to preserve negative emotion? And by the looks of things, nature is producing more and more corruptness than goodness so what does this mean for natural selection?

For that matter, why would nature evolve us into emotional beings to begin with?

Yes, we seem to possess an overabundance of emotions (negative or otherwise) as compared to all other creatures. I guess nature was overly generous. And you would think that like the Stoics we could have evolved with little to no emotion and still live in a functional society.

P.S. I guess this means one day stupid people will die off.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Yes, but it does not predate Judaism, remember, the first Christians were Jews.

P.S. And how can anyone doubt Christianity’s influence on Rome, it took three centuries for them to bring Rome to its knees without firing a single shot. I would think that’s influence enough.

the early Romans had no contact with Jewish civilization (at that point in history the Jews were a wandering nomadic tribe that virtually no one in their own region ever heard of … let alone anyone in Europe).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I hope you enjoy this futuristic sterile environment with its emphasis on technology instead of human relations.

P.S. I wonder what moral issues we’ll arrive at if we create a time machine?

I didn’t say sterile environment … after all purity is more of a religious occupation

Anyways … with regard to a time machine, some physicists (the ones who believe its possible) believe that even if we go back in time we won’t impact the future (in our current reference frame in time) because once we reach back in time we would create a fork in time, or an alternate universe (this is the short and simple explanation anyway).

 

[josie_L]

there are as many as 85% atheists or agnostics in Sweden, 80% in Denmark, 72% in Norway,

Several studies have found Sweden to be one of the most secular countries in the world. According to Davie (1999), 80% of Swedes do not believe in God (see link here).

You will find a similar picture in several other European countries outside of Scandinavia (in Britain up to half of the population report they “do not believe in a god” while in France up to 32% identify themselves as atheist and an equal percentage – totaling 64% of French citizens – report being agnostic). *

*the numbers in both France and England vary depending on the survey.

I found a survey that contradicts the percentages cited by your source:

gnxp.com/blog/2009/05/atheist-societies.php

 

[josie_L]

the early Romans had no contact with Jewish civilization (at that point in history the Jews were a wandering nomadic tribe that virtually no one in their own region ever heard of … let alone anyone in Europe).

How much do we know of the earliest Romans? I remember reading something about “the rape of Lucretia”, and the “raping of the sabine women”, can’t remember much about these events but I know they happened.

By the way, when did Jewish culture introduce itself into the Roman world, now that I would like to know?

 

[josie_L]

I didn’t say sterile environment … after all purity is more of a religious occupation

Anyways … with regard to a time machine, some physicists (the ones who believe its possible) believe that even if we go back in time we won’t impact the future (in our current reference frame in time) because once we reach back in time we would create a fork in time, or an alternate universe (this is the short and simple explanation anyway).

Purity is a choice sterility isn’t.

 

[aileron]

Have you read any encyclicals to derive the reasonings behind the Church’s stance on certain issues so to gain an understanding?

I refer to the relevant parts, yes.

And the laws are secular but the issues are not (the Church however provides more than one perspective - religious, philosophical, natural . . . to explain their position).

Let me provide a random sampling of the typical philosophical and natural arguments made in an encyclical (emphasis mine):

“…a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation. No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable…”

So yes, they mention natural law. However, they don’t reason for it, they just assert their appeal to authority. This is quite typical. That has been my chief complaint all along. If they have philosophical or natural arguments against something, there is no need to appeal to authority.

When they appeal to authority in an encyclical, that is not something non-Roman Catholics have any cause to complain about. People are free to join or leave the Church, to accept or reject their authority. However, when people so readily accept appeals to authority, they tend to use these arguments outside of the domain of people who recognize that authority, perhaps without even realizing they are doing it.

So when it comes to formulation of secular laws that affect all of us, Roman Catholic or not, they should be doubly careful to see if they are subtly appealing to an authority that most people do not recognize as authoritative.

And furthermore, you confuse your bible believing pastors with the intellectual might of a Church that has survived two millenia.

Oh, come on now. Why do you leap to this conclusion? I would venture a wager that off the top of my head I could name more landmark mathematical and scientific discoveries made by RC clergy than your average Catholic (Lemaitre, Mendel, Wulf, Tacquet, Strepling and Grimaldi just to name a few). I’m sorry people are lumping all of Christianity in with the most vocal and least sophisticated, but I’m not one of those people.

I’m sure you can find the answers somewhere (they have archives) on the Vatican website.

Oh, there are answers all right. All too often even in the scientific and medical papers, they mainly boil down to appeal to authority. Appeal to authority should not be expected to convince anyone who does not already accept that authority – which is to say in most countries, the majority of the population. Honestly, I don’t even think these people realize how much they are doing it, but it’s glaring for outsiders.

 

[Nebogipfel]

It is not so much the comment you made to Jam, as the general approach that most atheists have when coming here. It’s like they’re out to prove something.

Fair point. I know to my cost that atheism confers no immunity to being a jerk.

if your aim is to learn something about Catholicism, then maybe you should be more open-minded about such things as the Tilma of Gaudelupe before answering with some inane response that it was probably due to natural paints. As if no one thought of this while experimenting on the tilma for the last century or so. You showed an unwillingness to find out the facts.

When Eucharisted first mentioned this icon, I looked up the Wikipedia page.
As I alluded to in previous posts, this mentioned:

• an investigation in the 1930’s which could not identify the pigment
• an investigation in the 1950’s which reported images in the woman’s eyes. (I could not find any primary citations for either of these investigations)
• A 1977 investigation which concluded that the image was made in one go, and had not been altered since (this from Catholic Online, which again gives no citations for this investigation)
• An investingation in 2002 which identified the pigments as those commonly in use in Mexico in the 16th century, found no images in the eyes and found traces of preliminary sketches and alterations.

It did not mention any coded maps or anonymous NASA scientists

So from where I’m standing, the simplest and least inane explanation for the existence of this image is indeed that while it is a beautiful thing to look at, it is no less and no more than an ordinary painting made by an ordinary human being.

I am quite open to the possibility of extraordinary events, provided they are backed up with some robust evidence. Hearsay, third-hand anecdote and vague appeals to the authority of anonymous “NASA scientists” don’t come into that category; if they did, I’d have to believe every old bit of New Age woo that comes along.

Secondly, well since you are fixated on having that comment directed to you, my answer is this, that you showed your uninterested position in not wanting to learn about the faith when you commented on the tilma (you didn’t even take the time to know that the tilma had been experimented upon numerous times) as you did. Do you think that in all this time people (some from NASA) weren’t bright enough to realize that it was natural paints?

Which people from NASA? Where are the citations for the papers that they wrote on this subject? In which scientific journals were these investigations written up? How were the results checked and duplicated? If indeed the pigments are no known substance, what properties do they have? This is the stuff of robust scientific evidence.

If there is truly an entirely novel form of chemical compound or material element on the tilma which exists nowhere else on earth, then describing and isolating it is potentially Nobel winning research. Why aren’t material scientists from all over the world beating a path to Mexico?

(Of course, the Skeptical Brief is not a place for publishing primary scientific research either, but you’re not setting the standard-of-evidence bar terribly high in the first place)

 

[josie_L]

I refer to the relevant parts, yes.

And what do you think of those relevant parts?

Let me provide a random sampling of the typical philosophical and natural arguments made in an encyclical (emphasis mine):

“…a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation. No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable…”

Yes, she teaches infallibly on faith and morals, it’s not like she hid this fact from the rest of the world. And she most certainly won’t deny it when it comes to members of her own body.

So yes, they mention natural law. However, they don’t reason for it, they just assert their appeal to authority. This is quite typical. That has been my chief complaint all along. If they have philosophical or natural arguments against something, there is no need to appeal to authority.

Why is this an issue for you (authority) if all I asked was that you read the encyclicals to gain a greater understanding of the Church’s position (and I’m sure the encyclicals written are more than just an appeal to authority because they tend to be pretty long). Anyways you are allowed to reject or accept (based on how convincing she is in stating her case on key moral issues). And she does argue using natural, philosophical, scientific evidence/ approach, one example of this is abortion. She does not just appeal to the Bible/Tradition to state her case.

When they appeal to authority in an encyclical, that is not something non-Roman Catholics have any cause to complain about. People are free to join or leave the Church, to accept or reject their authority. However, when people so readily accept appeals to authority, they tend to use these arguments outside of the domain of people who recognize that authority, perhaps without even realizing they are doing it.

Name me a topic to which you refer to that you state people so readily accept because they appeal to the Church’s authority, and then we can argue whether or not the Church uses reasons solely biblical/traditional for preaching as she does.

So when it comes to formulation of secular laws that affect all of us, Roman Catholic or not, they should be doubly careful to see if they are subtly appealing to an authority that most people do not recognize as authoritative.

Do you think that we blindly follow the Church and do not bother to understand why She holds the positions she does? You would be surprised by how much faithful Catholics (in the West) know concerning such topics as embryonic stem cell research, abortion, cloning, contraceptives . . . . (that goes for the Pope too! )

Oh, come on now. Why do you leap to this conclusion? I would venture a wager that off the top of my head I could name more landmark mathematical and scientific discoveries made by RC clergy than your average Catholic (Lemaitre, Mendel, Wulf, Tacquet, Strepling and Grimaldi just to name a few). I’m sorry people are lumping all of Christianity in with the most vocal and least sophisticated, but I’m not one of those people.

I don’t know maybe because you put pastor and priest in the same sentence. I would think the average Priest would know his position well on key moral issues (more so than a pastor) since we have 2000 years worth of human observance and knowledge by countlless Catholics.

Oh, there are answers all right. All too often even in the scientific and medical papers, they mainly boil down to appeal to authority. Appeal to authority should not be expected to convince anyone who does not already accept that authority – which is to say in most countries, the majority of the population. Honestly, I don’t even think these people realize how much they are doing it, but it’s glaring for outsiders.

Even if I were to state I agree with the Church on moral issues I do background work to understand her stance on issues. And there is more than enough information to back her up.

 

[jam070406]

Fair point. I know to my cost that atheism confers no immunity to being a jerk.

When Eucharisted first mentioned this icon, I looked up the Wikipedia page.
As I alluded to in previous posts, this mentioned:

• an investigation in the 1930’s which could not identify the pigment
• an investigation in the 1950’s which reported images in the woman’s eyes. (I could not find any primary citations for either of these investigations)
• A 1977 investigation which concluded that the image was made in one go, and had not been altered since (this from Catholic Online, which again gives no citations for this investigation)
• An investingation in 2002 which identified the pigments as those commonly in use in Mexico in the 16th century, found no images in the eyes and found traces of preliminary sketches and alterations.

It did not mention any coded maps or anonymous NASA scientists

So from where I’m standing, the simplest and least inane explanation for the existence of this image is indeed that while it is a beautiful thing to look at, it is no less and no more than an ordinary painting made by an ordinary human being.

I am quite open to the possibility of extraordinary events, provided they are backed up with some robust evidence. Hearsay, third-hand anecdote and vague appeals to the authority of anonymous “NASA scientists” don’t come into that category; if they did, I’d have to believe every old bit of New Age woo that comes along.

Which people from NASA? Where are the citations for the papers that they wrote on this subject? In which scientific journals were these investigations written up? How were the results checked and duplicated? If indeed the pigments are no known substance, what properties do they have? This is the stuff of robust scientific evidence.

If there is truly an entirely novel form of chemical compound or material element on the tilma which exists nowhere else on earth, then describing and isolating it is potentially Nobel winning research. Why aren’t material scientists from all over the world beating a path to Mexico?

(Of course, the Skeptical Brief is not a place for publishing primary scientific research either, but you’re not setting the standard-of-evidence bar terribly high in the first place)

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0447.html

 

[jam070406]

Then there is this:

youtube.com/watch?v=KRXUCqiBKP4

acimps.org/content/view/88/2/

 

[josie_L]

Hearsay, third-hand anecdote and vague appeals to the authority of anonymous “NASA scientists” don’t come into that category; if they did, I’d have to believe every old bit of New Age woo that comes along.

Which people from NASA? Where are the citations for the papers that they wrote on this subject? In which scientific journals were these investigations written up? How were the results checked and duplicated? If indeed the pigments are no known substance, what properties do they have? This is the stuff of robust scientific evidence.

If there is truly an entirely novel form of chemical compound or material element on the tilma which exists nowhere else on earth, then describing and isolating it is potentially Nobel winning research. Why aren’t material scientists from all over the world beating a path to Mexico?

(Of course, the Skeptical Brief is not a place for publishing primary scientific research either, but you’re not setting the standard-of-evidence bar terribly high in the first place)

My intent was to peek your curiousity so that you would do the necessary research:

Scientific Investigations on Juan Diego’s Tilma

A Committee of Inquiry was established to investigate the many inexplicable facts connected with Juan Diego’s famous cloak.

In the first place, the textile experts were attracted by the outstanding state of preservation of the cloth. Though now protected by glass, the cloak was for centuries subjected to all sorts of inclemencies, lacked any protection from dust, was exposed to extremes of heat and humidity, without any apparent deterioration of the material or of the polichrome image of the Blessed Virgin.

The fabric on which the image is imprinted is woven from fibres of Mexican agave, which would be expected to decompose within twenty years or so, and this has been demonstrated more than once with facsimiles made of the same type of cloth. Meanwhile, Juan Diego’s cloak shows no sign of fraying or decomposition after four hundred and fifty years, and for reasons which the experts are unable to understand, it remains resistant to the effects of dust and humidity. This state of preservation was ascribed to the nature of the painting which covers the cloak and which could protect it and maintain its integrity. A sample was sent to the German Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, Richard Kuhn, but his reply left the enquirers even more baffled. The coloring in the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, according to the German scientist, was neither animal nor vegetable nor mineral in origin.

It was also suspected that the cloth might have been subjected to a special process. Great classical paintings have come down to us because the canvass (and also the surfaces on which frescoes are painted) have been previously prepared by being covered with a special varnish or plaster. By what form of preparation could the painting adhere and be preserved over agave fibre, itself so fragile and perishable?

Nasa Involved

Two American scientists, Dr. Callaghan of the NASA scientific team, and Jody B. Smith, professor of philosophy of science of Penascolla College, subjected the image to infra-red photographic scrutiny, and reached the following conclusions:

First - the agave fibres have not been given any type of preparation whatever. How the coloring matter impregnates and adheres to such an inadequate canvas is just inexplicable in the present state of our knowledge.

Second- there are no previous sketches such as have been revealed by infra-red photography in the paintings of Rubens, Velazquez, Titian and El Greco. The image is “painted” straight, as we see it, and lacks all preliminary outlines or corrections.

Third - there are no brushmarks. The techniques employed is unknown in the history of painting. It is unique, incomprehensible and inimitable.

Study of the Eyes (Digitization)

Alongside these investigations, a further study was being carried out. A famous oculist, Torija Lauvoignet, examined the eyes of the image by means of a high powered ophthalmoscope lens and made the observation that there was a tiny image reflected in the iris resembling the figure of a man. This discovery led to the “digitization” of the image reflected in the eyes of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

The process involves the division of an image into microscopic portions, so that a surface of one square millimeter would be divided into 27,778 minute squares. Once this is done, each of these squares can be amplified up to 2000 times, allowing details to be observed and scrutinized which under normal means of inspection would not be apparent. And the details discovered by this means in the iris of the image from the shrine in Mexico were:
–an Indian unfolding a cloak in front of a Franciscan, on whose face a teardrop can be seen;
–a young man, bearded, with his hand on his chin and a look of consternation on his face;
–a bare trunked Indian in an attitude possibly of prayer;
–a woman with short curly hair, perhaps a Negro servant of the bishop;
–a man, a woman and some children with close cropped hair;
–some other monks in Franciscan habits, in fact, the very scene related in

Aztec by an anonymous author of the mid-sixteenth century and subsequently published in 1649 by Lasso de la Vega.

Studies are currently being made by art experts to compare these figures with the known portraits of Archbishop Zumarraga and his contemporaries. What does appear to be physically impossible is that in an area as small as the cornea of an eye, in an image which is approximately life size, any artist could have painted a portrait which needs to be enlarged two thousand times for the details to become apparent.

Source: Torcuato Luca de Tena, ABC, Madrid, 16 September 1981.

bukal.com/pdfs/tilma-b.rtf

 

[josie_L]

If there is truly an entirely novel form of chemical compound or material element on the tilma which exists nowhere else on earth, then describing and isolating it is potentially Nobel winning research. Why aren’t material scientists from all over the world beating a path to Mexico?

(Of course, the Skeptical Brief is not a place for publishing primary scientific research either, but you’re not setting the standard-of-evidence bar terribly high in the first place)

Also, to help further your investigation of the Tilma, please investigate the Shroud of Turin (the most tested artifact in history), the substance found on both items are the same. Here’s the main website for the shroud (put together by a Jew) shroud.com/