This evening I visited the Christian Union on Campus

[Undesired Walrus]

Evening.

This evening, I visited the Christian Union to take some photo's for the Student Union. I went there as an impartial observor, but managed to get into things a lot more.

I took a picture of some Christians talking, on my trusty 1970's wind-on camera. They turned and asked where I was going to publish them. In my charming voice, I told them some witty remark. They laughed, I laughed, we all laughed.

I realised that I was not going to pass up such a breeding ground for religion, so I asked them why they believed in God. I must have said the word 'evidence' a thousand times, but it all came down to one thing, their evidence that 500 people saw Jesus when he returned from the dead. I asked them if this was evidence enough, and they asked 'What physical evidence could you have of that?'. I must admit, I was stumped. Why did I not accept this as 'evidence' other than my belief it was insane? I then thought, 'The trusty so and so's on JREF will help me out'.

I had a good time asking them the classic Dawkins one, 'You cannot prove Zeus is not, you can't prove that Allah is not' and they replied, 'Well, Zeus has been in a cartoon book, God has not'. I wondered if this was such an intellectual answer, and asked again. They admitted it was a compelling question, so called over the 'head' of the CU. She asked me, again, why eyewitness testimony was not enough. I admit, other than thinking, 'Because it sounds bloody ridiculous' I could not come up with a definitave stumping brick, other than 'Line up 10 people and ask them who killed JFK. Most likely over half will say the US government because it is more sexy and gives us a meaning'. Beaming with my massive intellect, I strutted away, still wishing JREF to come to my aid.

Then the real fun began. A evangelist called John spoke to me. I was told that John recently brought somebody back from the dead last week. I was struck by this world-shattering news, so asked what the last miracle John performed was.

Turned out he cured someone who was deaf. Gettit? Deaf, Death? Oh how Chinese whispers can flow.

I must admit I was a bit rude to John, a man who fascinated me with his two front teeth slanted away from his canines at a bizzare degree. Surely God could have healed him of that (This, I did not say)? When he admitted that he thought evolution was a load of rubbish, I said 'It's not too late John, it's not too late'. I regret my rudeness, and he was very humble to my pontifications, so that made me feel a bit worse. Still, he offered no compelling evidence, other than the facts that he had scientific evidence of countless people being cured by him, given the power of the Holy spirit. Jesus visited John at 17, and told him to spread the word of Christ, and told him he was able to heal. I asked John, 'Are these stories real John? Are they really?'. He told me they were true, his grandfathers bladder had been repaired in a matter of days and the doctor had said 'This is a work of God'.

I then had a moment of inspiration, and asked John if he would be willing to perform the randi 1million pound challange. Oh how we laughed when he thought I said 'Randy'! He said, 'I'm not in it for the money'. But I said, 'But John, think of all the hospitals you could fund with that, all the starving mouths you could feed'. He said 'True, and I don't want to sound like I am copping out, but God will reveal himself when he wants to. If God told me to do it I would'.

At that point I left him, leaving him with the words of the poet Zuhair, 'The tongue of a man is one half, and the other half is his mind, and there is nothing inbetween the two, except the shape of the blood and the flesh'. He said, 'Oh how depressing!'.

I was conflicted, as I think I was too agressive, and I have realised I must now only be a pro-Atheist person, and not allow myself to be swallowed by irrational, anti-theist ways. I am suddenly, a better person being confronted with such woo. Am I somewhat right in my presumption, or treat all with the same level of hostility?

Please, JREF, help me make sense of this strange evening, as I have typed for some time on this keyboard, and am I quite pissed (Means drunk in UK slang).

[l0rca]

I'm really glad to hear that you're drunk. If this was your normal prose voice, I'd have to fly up there and smack you with a frying pan.

[TJ]

I always the people who don't believe in evolution whether they favor their father or their mother, as far as their looks go. They always take the bait and say immediately something like "people tell me that I look like my father."

To this I reply that that person is living, breathing proof of evolution, since he/she had inherited obvious traits from a progenitor. Then I ask if they have children and which parent the child resembles. I think you can see where it goes from here.

[jimtron]

Eyewitness account? The Gospels were written 50-100 years after Jesus' death. Not by firsthand witnesses, but by 2nd or 3rd hand witnesses (iirc). Yes, there's a book that exists that claims people saw Jesus rise from the dead. Who wrote this book? What do we know of their integrity, etc.? What do we know of the many editors who edited the bible for hundreds of years?

Would these people believe any book that makes extraordinary claims? Do they believe that Muhammad wrote the Koran as channeled from Allah? If not, why not? The Koran is directly from god, the gospels were written and edited by mortals. L. Ron Hubbard claimed that he visited the Van Allen belt (this was discussed on Nightline years ago). He said it happened, why shouldn't we believe him?

Also, re: "but it all came down to one thing, their evidence that 500 people saw Jesus when he returned from the dead"

500 people saw him alive. Did those same people see him killed? Could it have been a different guy that looked similar? Could the death have been faked? If David Copperfield can make people believe that the statue of Liberty disappeared, why couldn't Jesus have faked his death?

I have no problem if Christians or other religious people say that they believe because they're taking a leap of faith. But to claim evidence is utterly absurd.

eta: link (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2664713&page=1) regarding Hubbard's visit to the Van Allen Belt.

eta 2: minor editing.
eta 3: Why did I not accept this as 'evidence' other than my belief it was insane?
The point is not that it seemed insane to you. There are some things that seem impossible that are actually real. The problem with the Jesus story is not that it sounds crazy, the problem is that there is no reliable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead--it's not even 100% certain that Jesus existed at all (if I'm not mistaken). There is a mistaken belief among woos that skeptics discount things simply because they sound weird, or are Eastern instead of Western, etc. Not true. I don't care how outlandish something sounds, if the evidence holds up, I'll believe it. The natural world is known to sometimes be quite strange.

[Fnord]

I was conflicted, as I think I was too agressive, and I have realised I must now only be a pro-Atheist person, and not allow myself to be swallowed by irrational, anti-theist ways. I am suddenly, a better person being confronted with such woo. Am I somewhat right in my presumption, or treat all with the same level of hostility?

I won't go into hair-splitting on why you might or might not be a "Better" person for this experience. But I do have a couple of thoughts:

1) Thank you for being nice about it, and for handling the situation in a diplomatic way. I would hate to receive another wave of emails telling about how a certain Christian's Union leader "felt the cold evil" of another "minion for Satan" and how their favorite healer "came under attack by the Devil Himself" and how they were saved only by "fervent prayers and God's own intervention." Gimme a break...

Then again, your likeness could have been featured on the cover of a Chick Tract! You sure missed a golden opportunity, there!

2) I wish I had been there to get my two schillings in. While I am a Christian, I get a little steamed over so-called "healers" who distort the truth and equate coincidence with proof.

And as far as that part of the "500 witnesses" ... well ... that doesn't prove it for me, either. Faith requires no proof, and those people should have told you that instead of trying to convince you with their so-called "evidence."

Faith and reason aren't even on the same chart. You just can't use one to support or defeat the other.

[jimtron]

Faith requires no proof

Good point.

[l0rca]

Faith and reason aren't even on the same chart. You just can't use one to support or defeat the other.

I've always found this the strangest claim.

It's not that I don't think faith can't be removed from reason. It's just that once we're dealing with faith, the claims made theirin have no way to restrain themselves.

It was actually the most difficult thing to remove myself from Christianity; this whole "faith is of untouchable value" item. You can't reason it away. It's a statement, entirely baseless but reinforced through tradition and positive feeling.

Faith is undefeatable in some people. I suppose I should be grateful that those who are of faith around me are not those of a faith which drives them to behead me.

[Fnord]

"Faith is of untouchable value"? I don't get it. Faith, in and of itself, has no intrinsic value, being entirely subjective. Did you actually mean something like "Faith is an untouchable value"? Or maybe "virtue" instead of "value"?

Mneh ... I'm quibbling ... never mind ...

[JoeEllison]

"God" was in a comic book too... he got his fool head blown off by the Saint of Killers.

[l0rca]

"Faith is of untouchable value"? I don't get it. Faith, in and of itself, has no intrinsic value, being entirely subjective. Did you actually mean something like "Faith is an untouchable value"? Or maybe "virtue" instead of "value"?

Mneh ... I'm quibbling ... never mind ...

No, I do mean that faith in itself is an untouchable value, but I mean it in an two dimensional sort of way.

Firstly, I refer it towards the ideas of "faith is a mystery," and a "rewarding" thing. Obviously, those who say this are referring specifically to what they have faith in, and not simply faith itself.

But secondly, because of the many, many things people place irreversible faith in, the value of simply placing "faith" into a set of beliefs has in-itself untouchable value. Faith is the connotative opposite of dogmatism, but its meaning is indistinguishable.

So, I am claiming faith, as a verb, is the most valuable defense in any dogmatic system, because by its definition it can not be reasoned away.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Proof requires no faith! ;)

[thaiboxerken]

God was also in a couple of South Park episodes. I guess those UC people missed that one.

[jimtron]

God was also in a couple of South Park episodes. I guess those UC people missed that one.

Yes, and certainly Jesus has been in cartoons. Maybe someone should send the CU folks cartoons with god and Jesus to show them evidence that they don't really exist, by the CU folks' own logic.

[thaiboxerken]

Doesn't Jesus appear in Chick Tracts as well?

"Thor has been in comic books and cartoons."

"You mean like this" hold out Chick Tract with Jesus in it.

[Apology]

Yes, and certainly Jesus has been in cartoons. Maybe someone should send the CU folks cartoons with god and Jesus to show them evidence that they don't really exist, by the CU folks' own logic.

Even if you do, though, they'll just stop using that particular argument. It won't sway their faith. Some might say that it teaches them to make a better argument when you point out these flaws, and consider that a negative. I've also pointed out certain dichotomies of religion and had the person come to a new conclusion that affirmed their faith even more than their previous rationale, which I assure you was not my intention. For instance, upon receiving your cartoons and being disabused of the notion that Jesus has never starred in one, they may come to the conclusion that Fnord mentioned, Faith requires no proof, which you must admit is a better argument than one with such a clear and obvious fallacy.

I still think it's worth pointing these things out, though, because when you cause someone to question their faith you do have a very small window of opportunity in which to suggest alterations.

Undesired Walrus, I appreciate your attempt to be civil. The fact that they were willing to speak with you at length and let you into their private place rather than summarily ejecting you speaks for your character in a positive way. You were their guest, and you behaved properly as a guest. If you got a little aggravated with them, well, I can't say I blame you. After all, they were sounding you out to see if they could convert you ;)

[jimtron]

'Well, Zeus has been in a cartoon book, God has not'.

Truly one of the lamest arguments I've heard. Anyway, I thought Zeus was god?

[GeeMack]

Yes, and certainly Jesus has been in cartoons. Maybe someone should send the CU folks cartoons with god and Jesus to show them evidence that they don't really exist, by the CU folks' own logic.


And if they want, they can even make their own Jesus comics at the Jesus Comic Generator (http://jesus.christ.comicstripgenerator.com/).

(Hey, jimtron, are you the same jimtron I recently met over at that green Café?)

[pgwenthold]

As far as the "eyewitnesses" go, ask them how many people have claimed to see Elvis in the last 30 years.

Or you could ask for the names of those 500 people who claim to have seen him (btw, doesn't that contradict some of the stories in the other gospels, where Jesus appeared to just a couple?)

[ponderingturtle]

'Well, Zeus has been in a cartoon book, God has not'.

Yep, God was only played by George Burns, thus proveing that God exists.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I realised that I was not going to pass up such a breeding ground for religion, so I asked them why they believed in God. I must have said the word 'evidence' a thousand times, but it all came down to one thing, their evidence that 500 people saw Jesus when he returned from the dead. I asked them if this was evidence enough, and they asked 'What physical evidence could you have of that?'. I must admit, I was stumped. Why did I not accept this as 'evidence' other than my belief it was insane? I then thought, 'The trusty so and so's on JREF will help me out'.

Even if we grant that we have 500 eyewitness accounts of zombie Jesus, which is more likely: that there is a god who boinked a virgin, causing her to give birth to a son who was also the god, who then performed various miracles, got nailed to a tree, came back after a hard weekend, ascended into heaven, and is kicking it on streets of gold waiting for dad/himself to send him back to Earth with a sword sticking out of his mouth; or that 500 people are lying/hallucinating/just plain wrong?

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.

[ChristineR]

Five hundred people saw him, but not one managed to write it down, or even mention it to someone who wrote it down. We have no idea who was Paul's informant on this matter.

It's pretty unclear what this meant. A lot of the sightings of Jesus appear to have been visionary. There are many cases of mass hallucinations, but you'd think that even a mass hallucination of that magnitude would have been noted somewhere.

Some of the sightings specify that Jesus didn't look at all like Jesus, leading one to suspect that there was some guy walking around claiming to be Jesus, and 500 people saw him and thought he was nuts. We will probably never know what was the real basis of this story, but it's clear that crowds of random people did not see someone that they believed to be a dead man walking around. In fact it's likely that crowds of random people didn't see anything that they thought to be worth noting down, as none of them ever did.

My guess is that in the days shortly after the crucifixion a large number of Christians and sympathizers had ecstatic visions and no non-Christian who was aware of the events thought they were interesting. I could certainly be all wrong about that, but there is my guess.

[alfaniner]

I'd be willing to bet that at least 500 people claim to have seen Elvis alive.

Since 1978, I mean.

[Madalch]

Their evidence that 500 people saw Jesus when he returned from the dead. I asked them if this was evidence enough, and they asked 'What physical evidence could you have of that?'.
But we don't have 500 eyewitnesses, we have one person claiming that there were 500 witnesses.

In one of the Star Trek books, the Enterprise lit up the entire night sky of a planet by using its phasers to trigger something akin to the aurora borealis- there must have been billions of witnesses. Surely that proves that Captain Kirk was a real person! Who could doubt a billion eyewitnesses?

Their idea of evidence is a lot like that of the people who decided that Poe's story about Valdemar (the man who dies while under hypnosis and continues to hold a conversation for months until the trance is lifted) was completely true because it bears "internal evidence of authenticity".

Linky: http://www.eapoe.org/works/MISC/MAR0348.HTM