Shroud of Ignorance

In a lot of the discussions I've had about the validity of Religion the shroud of Turin is a popular piece of "evidence." It really doesn't matter what the scientist's actually said (CSICOP News: Shroud of Turin Exhibition Renews False Claims of Authenticity) because the belief isn't based on evidence. The problem is they try to justify their faith. Though this is a commendable idea, it is bootstrapping. Once you believe something everything else will seem to fit and you will automatically not register opposing evidence. They are effectively practicing
doublethink.

The main problem with all the religious types is that they believe in something and so try to find evidence to support the belief. It is because of this that they only understand the idea of disproving notions (such as god). Any reasonable person would say that's not the right direction, you must find evidence to prove something exists not vice-versa. By that logic you could say that you can't disprove the existence of Superman! In fact that is the easiest way to make the religious argument fall apart: turn the question about god into one about another fictional character like Superman or Santa.