Born of a Virgin. How do atheists pretend to disprove that?

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Choosing what to believe (rather than being rationally compelled) is sometimes necessary when you're bombarded with competing, contradictory fact claims. Eg. The internet was supposed to herald a New Dawn Information Age. But many of us, when faced with the Internet's myriad 'facts' about Global Warming, Climate Change, Covid-19 statistics, Abortion, etc. simply retreat back into the comfort zone and safety of fedeism - believing what we prefer to believe. (Unborn babies don't feel pain, Big Pharma is scamming us, humans can't change the climate..)

It's also sometimes necessary to choose what you believe the evidence means. Evidence by itself doesn't always answer "ought" questions. I can choose a course of action based on hard evidence yet someone else might choose an opposite course of action from the exact same set of facts.

...if you're Abraham and you hear a loud voice telling you to take Isaac up a mountain, maybe you can't pretend (choose to believe) you didn't hear a voice. You don't dispute the fact that you heard something. (Sensory evidence.) But you still have to process that evidence and decide if it was a demon trying to trick you, God trying to test you, someone hiding behind a bush playing a prank.
Moving forward on the basis that we distinguisfreely choosing to believe (like you'd freely choose chocolate over vanilla) from being rationally compelled to adopt a position, two people who adopt contrary positions can both claim to be rationally compelled and to be following the evidence; it's just that one (or both) of them is incorrect. That doesn't make it a choice in the free, chocolate vs vanilla sense.

Also, the other option you've left out is you can say, "I don't know."
 

Lion IRC

Active member
If you are presented with contradictory fact claims, you pretty much have to preferentially choose which is the more believable.

Also, I can't understand how "I don't know" is a choice. Surely, that would be the involuntary result of being deprived of the evidence needed. A blind person doesnt choose their inability to know what color is in front of them.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
If you are presented with contradictory fact claims, you pretty much have to preferentially choose which is the more believable.
True, but all options may fall below 50% believable, in which case you'd believe that no option is likely true.
Also, I can't understand how "I don't know" is a choice. Surely, that would be the involuntary result of being deprived of the evidence needed. A blind person doesnt choose their inability to know what color is in front of them.
Perhaps "choice" was the wrong term. "I don't know" is another possibility, especially (only?) when every option is below 50% believability.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
There was also prophecy predicting the virgin birth....and I don't intend to discuss the "meaning" of the word virgin. Would Joseph have know of the prophecy?

I don't know...but, a dream from God would be very convincing. I would imagine it was quite lucid.

There may have also been a physical examination.

Then again if you don't believe in the virgin birth, that's fine. It should also be fine that I believe in the virgin birth.
There was no prophecy predicting the virgin birth.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
The first atheeist to try their shifting burden of proof is the first self defeating atheist.

Reminder athe materialism claims reptiles sprouted wings and announced transition to the avian world. Magic

"In Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily"

How can atheists remove the fact of The Godhead and remove it from Jesus.
Why did Mark and John not mention the Virgin birth? Seems to be quite an oversight for such an important event.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
We disprove it the same way we disprove the belief that Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider.

Why not tell us how you disprove Peter Parker being bitten by a radioactive spider, so we can SEE if you can disprove the virgin birth in the same way.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
Why not tell us how you disprove Peter Parker being bitten by a radioactive spider, so we can SEE if you can disprove the virgin birth in the same way.
By not doing anything. Obvious fiction doesn't need to be disproved.
If YOU think the story is true then YOU need to make a case for it.
 

Howie

Well-known member
It's not in the earliest texts of Matthew.
It is. However, if it weren't, it wouldn't matter. It is in the canonical manuscrpts, and it is confirmed in Isaiah.
And the fact that a prexisting story talks about a virgin birth is in no way evidence of a prophecy.
Sure it is. The prophecy says the virgin will name him Immanuel. The meaning of "Immanuel" in Hebrew is, literally, with us God.

Jesus is God.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
It's easy to understand, if you have half a brain. Here's why: Mark is not John is not Luke, is not Paul is not James is not Jude is not Matthew, who did not overlook it. Got it?
No. What are you trying to say?
 
Top