I have to agree with you here. My office has been through two hundred year floods in the past 15 years. While it is a big deal to me when it happens, it is not a big deal as far as probability theory goes. It would be very insipid to think that the fact that it had happened once would mean that I am safe for another century. The only thing that you can take from probability theory is that such a flood probably happens about 100 times in 10,000 years. Past that, there is no real reason to think that it could not happen again the day after the building department gives my employer a brand new certificate of occupancy.

Now if we apply a similar analysis to virgin birth, we can see that probability arguments do not really help theists seeking to establish that something supernatural happened. Just for grins, let's say that the probability of a mammalian parthenogenesis are quite long indeed. Let's say that they are so long that it is reasonable for there to only be a single example ever. If we want a real number here, let me suggest the odds are 1:1x10^50.

Well that simply does not mean that there can only be one ever. There could be three happening one right after the other in the same city and the same year. There would be nothing special about such an occurrence. I suppose that one could call that odd but it would be an allowable fact of nature, not the supernatural thing that the theists want it to be.

In short, if something is probable (however slim the odds are), then it is possible. If something is possible then it is subject to a naturalistic explanation and therefore the whole “god did it” argument falls apart. So probable=not a miracle.

I've checked out this "miricle" thing he mentions four times and apparently the only thing it could be is a diminutive person from Serbia, which really throws a whole new slant on the "chosen people" delusion.

There is a false notion that the term "virgin" in the gospels is simply a mistranslation of "young woman". On the contrary the guys were really trying to get the birth in line with what they reckoned was a "prophecy" which would validate messianic claims on behalf of ther favourite little baby (Baby Slobodan, if the "miricle" fits my theory above). The false notion is based on the correct observation that Isaiah, in his prediction, used the word "alma", which in Hebrew means only a young woman, and not "betulah" which would have left the intact status of the woman's hymen in no doubt. But Aramaic and Greek were not Hebrew, and by the time the offending texts were being formulated ambiguous use of "alma" abounded in the region and the idea that the messiah would be born of a "virgin" had already apparently gained some currency. And why not? After all, we're not talking about a completely rational belief here - in fact the more absurd some of its tenets the more attractive it was, such was the general mentality and standard of education in the area at the time.

Here's how weird the this belief became (and which is still catholic doctrine). Not only was Mary a virgin upon conceiving but she remained "virgina intacta" after the birth too and on up to the day she died (or shot off into space). Such matters (intact hymens) taxed the minds of men at the time - and apparently some men in frocks even today - so they were quite intricate and exact in their dissemination (pardon the pun) of the subject, which is a good thing because it means we are fortunate to have many literary references to this obsession from the time. There's no doubt about it - when the biblical claim is made on Mary's behalf it means exactly what we have all heard - the poor girl got all the work and none of the fun. And, if we are to believe that Jesus had at least one brother then he too had a virgin birth. And so on.

Absurd twaddle. A "miricle" even. Blessed are the cheesemakers.

Douche wrote "people back then wern’t gullibal fools".

Really? Mmm... how many gods did people buy into back then?

 As far as fulfilling Biblical prophecies, you would do well to direct him to John 7:41-42. Also, if he is maintaining that the virgin birth happened, then Jesus isn't biologically related to Joseph, and therefore not of the lineage of David, and therefore doesn't fulfill the most-referenced prophecy that he was said to. 

My mates Matthew and Luke wrote in their excursion reports that they saw Elvis come back to Earth in a spaceship. Mark, who was with them at the time, failed to mention this small detail in his report. Therefore it is true. The written testimony of two mates who happen to be in the "I believe Elvis travels in a spaceship" club is obviously undeniable.

I don't understand why we (or Chistians) try to seriously debate this topic. It doesn't matter how unscientific or unlikely it is, they can just say "I believe in God and he performs magic so he can do whatever he wants."

I prefer to say that the bible is fiction and therefore the events in it are no more worth debating than whether the One Ring was actually destroyed in Mount Doom (or whatever, I can't be bothered checking fiction names at the moment.... because it doesn't matter!!)

I agree with Hitchens position:

"Is it more likely that the laws of nature were suspended or that a hebrew slut would lie?"

From http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html: "In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts."

Worship of Mithras reaches back before 600 BC. Plenty of other sources of the same type of legend (virgin birth) are speckled all over history. The claim that the documents were "independent" is completely incredulous.

And even if it was credulous, there is a lot of difference between inventing electromagnetic engine and virgin birth independently - all you need for the second is the wish for the bitch to be "pure" for your God's cock. The myth is a necessity - two cocks equate a whore even today.

No, you really don't want that. The guy is a fucking joke.

I like Hitchens. Why exactly is he a fucking joke?

 If any axiom says it all it would be "Opinions are like assholes", the only verification anyone of any position can rely on is scrutiny outside one's own whims. Not based on popularity, but one of insistence of independent replication and falsification outside ones own pet whims.

What does "most of the time" mean? Do you agree with his argumentation most of today, but not at 8PM? I will give you the benefit of doubt, assume that you are not retarded and that you mean to agree with some of his views and methods in general.

Well let me ask you on the two major issues: religion and war. Particularly Hitchens' method of arguing against religion and his argumentation for war.

1) Do you agree with his bitter, insulting and derogative stand-up comedy way of "arguing" against all forms of religious belief?

2) Do you subscribe to his religious war-mongering, rabid support for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and open disregard of international law, human rights and human life in general evident in his commentary and debate (including Vanity Fair column, not that I am advertising - the man is the living definition of nihilism disguised as alcoholic stupor and should never be given the time of day, let alone a column)?

If you agree with either of the two, you will give me the benefit of no doubt when it comes to your cognitive faculties.

If I actually considered myself to be a genius, that would probably hit top 10 most severe insults you could give me - the man is clearly less genuine and competent than a circus clown. He might hit the spot in your segment of the public-opinion market, but it doesn't make him any less of a comedy show.

Chomsky used to not want to comment on Hitchens' sudden turn to the radical couch-hawk right wing blogging/commenting/war-mongering, but even he finally came out and called Hitchens for a "sad case".

I understand your need to defend a fellow atheist, but there are atheists and then there is this guy. He is not as much an atheist as he is enjoying his malice. If this is what you identify with when it comes to Hitchens' position on religion, please take my council even if less readily: stop taking his.

There you go, we should be even now.

Hitchens' whole spirit is summed up in that quote: no nuance, all malicious attack through ridicule. He does not miss the greater picture, he defaces is on purpose - far greater crime than simple ignorance. If it wasn't about Hitchens, I would have been more diplomatic about answering your posts. Sorry about that.

I wish he was a drunken moron. Unfortunately he seems to be a sarcastic comedian taken seriously by both himself and the main stream media circus. The alcohol is a trademark. He probably figured American suckers like it, so I'll just do it. Continuously boasting how he "use to be leftist, but now he's smart instead" is another major part of his act. Considering that TV accounts for more time in an average person's life than any primary, secondary or higher education, the man is a cancer on our collective mental health.

Cool. I use to listen to his debates and read his commentary because he clearly isn't stupid. I guess that's why he pisses me off far more than any born-to-be-a-crony type of public persona.

Same with me on both accounts. I just try to follow the "intellectual life" of the most aggressive world player and draw conclusions from it. I witnessed the purposeful intellectual decay in Yugoslavia first hand, birth of logic of fear and violence and its results - never diminish the role of power-hungry and megalomanic intellectuals in the worst decisions ever made.

Witty remarks and sarcasm are weapons, a certain mood is the desired result. People say that jokes are only funny if they are 50% the truth. If so, I say that the ignored 50% of the truth is usually the nuance than can make the difference between destructive sarcasm and constructive irony. I've seen it at work in public space of my native country - sometimes its the difference between peace and war. I would be hard pressed to call that an aestetic dislike. A comedian is a soldier shooting bullets far more dangerous than live rounds from a gun.

Yea, its funny. But its not bambi-fell-on-the-ice funny. Its if-you-are-religious-you-are-stupid funny. Used to divide a large body of people along religious/ethnic/regional/etc lines, the pointed malicious sarcasm kills the debate by wiping 50% of the truth off the table, stirs the worst in people and provokes knee-jerk reactions. You can see that much is true in the way I responded to you - and I'm an atheist! You think a religious person would smile and say: "yea, ok, you got us there"? I doubt that very strongly.

Hitchens is good at what he does, he feeds his egocentric needs and earns a comfortable living utilizing his skill. You should listen to a debate between him and his own brother on the topic of religion, who by no means has the same eloquence and wit. You can almost smell the atmosphere of profound hate growing in the room based completely on mentioned half-truths. You can also be sure that Hitchens will never attempt to face a calm and reasoning opponent - his sarcasm would just fall flat and that's not TV material.