Virgin Birth Confirmed

The first reply he got in the original thread was off me and it was along these lines. He just ignored it as far as I'm aware.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why is reality supposed to be magical? Because you don't believe in science?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By "magical" I of course meant something supernatural or miraculous that indicated that Jesus was divine. People assume that it's impossible for a human to get pregnant spontaneously, so the fact that Mary's pregnancy with Jesus was spontaneous is taken as evidence that he was miraculously created by god's intervention in the "normal" operation of the world. If it's actually possible for spontaneous pregnancy to happen without divine intervention, then it makes Jesus less special and the story of his birth less magical (or supernatural, or miraculous, or whatever word you prefer).

So again, I don't see any reason why an atheist would want to deny this. Much like if scientists were to discover that sometimes water spontaneously turns into wine or people can sometimes walk on water. An atheist would probably just say "Ha, so even if the bible stories are true, there wasn't necessarily anything magical about him."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't see any reason why atheists deny virgin birth? Ok well I guess we're all happy then.

 

Based purely on evidence from observing sharks. IE, a stretch of the facts, to breaking point.

 

Under some circumstances, no.

But please don't abstract this to absurdity.

 

I am an atheist, and yes, I don't see any reason to deny it. If you believe that virgin birth is impossible, there are two explanations.

1. Jesus was magical
2. The bible's story about the virgin birth isn't true

This adds a third option:

3. The bible's story about the virgin birth are true, but don't prove that Jesus was magical because virgin births sometimes happen naturally anyway

So now even if one does believe the account of the virgin birth (which I don't anyway), it isn't proof that Jesus was magically created. This appears to only make the atheist position even stronger (assuming you think it's relevant to mammals, which I doubt).

 

How do you reconcile these two statements?

 

I don't know, how do you reconcile to statements that don't conflict?

 

On the one hand he says there is no reason to deny virgin birth, on the other hand he says he doesn't believe in virgin birth and can't account for it...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Noone has ever accused atheists of being logical or consistent though.

 

yeah because a shark's virgin birth is equivalent to the birth of the messiah??? if that logic you better get down to that aquarium and start praying to the lords second coming, which I have to admit is really awesome that he has come back as a shark!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh for the love of the freakin sky-pixie!

Virgin Mary my ass.

Yosef: Hey, Mary darlin....you wake?

Mary: zzzzzzzz fart zzzzzzzzzz

Yosef: hehe, maybe I can sneak a little action in while the worth-less-than-a-dog female is asleep.

Mary: zzzzzzzzz hmmmmm zzzzzzzzz hmmmmmm nicccccceeeeeeeeee zzzzzzzzz

Yosef: Ahhhhh, much better. zzzzzzzzzzzzz

9 months later: WHAAAAAAAAAA WHAAAAAAAA Hey folks, I'm jebus! Wasup?

Yeah, that's a lot more likely than some made up bullshit about a virgin birth.

Hell man, they didn't even have a clue what made babies anyway!

Women were literally worth less than a skinny ass dog and had no rights what-so-ever. If an unmarried women woke with the drip, the LAST thing she would do is accuse ANY man of doing something wrong. Claiming a virgin birth would be a great face saver. Specially if it was a special jebus kid.

You thumpers crack me up!

 

Well, you tell noony he doesn't know what he's talking about. No one was listening.

 

Maybe I should have been more clear, because you obviously have trouble grasping things that aren't spelled out very explicitly. When I said that I didn't see any reason for atheists to object to this, I meant that it doesn't weaken the atheist position.

Personally I don't think it's of much relevance to mammals, so I still don't think that it's possible for a human to have a virgin birth. For me, the new 3rd option that I mentioned isn't relevant. It was just a hypothetical third option that would be available for someone who believed that sharks being able to give birth without having sex is evidence that humans can give birth without having sex. So, although I do not believe that virgin birth is possible for humans, I don't think that it would weaken the atheist position if it were possible.

 

But the shark didn't give birth to a male shark it gave birth to another female shark. So if I had said it last week I wouldn't have been wrong. I didn't say it was impossible only highly unlikely.

 

he never said it was impossible, just

that could include invitro fertilization (probably spelled wrong), test tube babies, and a milieu of other methods.

 

Females are never born with an extra y chromosome. If they have a y chromosome then they are male. Females may have extra X chromosomes, but any Y's automatically makes them male (by definition) whether they look like it or not.

 

Correct - although goose is correct that sometimes people are born with two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome, those people are male; they look like males and have male reproductive organs (and can even reproduce with a female mate to produce either a male or female child).

The "female" athlete that goose mentioned wasn't XXY, they were an XY male who had a genetic problem that caused their body to not respond to testosterone in the normal way. This causes people to develop bodies that appear to have female reproductive organs, but in many ways their bone and muscle structure is still male (making them superior to most female athletes). They can't reproduce because although they appear to have a vagina, they don't actually have any internal female reproductive organs (ovaries/uterus/eggs/etc).

 

There has been no observation of a Virgin Mary.

There has been no observation of parthenogenesis in mammals, AFAIK. The link you provide, as usual with your links, contradicts your claims.

There are many observations of parthenogenesis in non-placental vertebrates. Maybe some day there will be an observation of it in a placental mammal. That would be much more surprising news than discovery of it in yet another (and evolutionarily older) cold blooded egg layer. At that time, the story of the Virgin Mary will remain the obvious myth and archetype evocation that it is now.

 

If it happens again, it will be the Anti Christ.