A belief that atheism is true because of insufficient evidence for belief in God is feeble and unwarranted. Kai Nielsen, an atheist philosopher, correctly explained that “[t]o show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false”(Nielsen 1971: 143-4).
Even if an atheist succeed in showing that the theist’s case for existence of God is a failure, this by itself does not confirm the truthfulness of atheism. “All the proofs of God’s existence may fail,” explained Nielsen, “but it still may be the case that God exists”(ibid)
If all proofs of God’s existence fail, and there are no evidence for the belief in God, then agnosticism, not atheism, is a warranted position unless a successive case is give against the existence of God.
The sum total of the probability that God does exist, P(T) with that of God does not exist, P(not-T) must equal 1. An agnostic gives both P(T) and P(not-T) the values .5. When theist C offer evidences for the existence of God, C increases the value of P(T) thus, decreasing P(not-T). So if say, the probability that God exists given background information viz., cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral and resurrection of Jesus argument is .7, (thus P(not-T) = .3), and an atheist A succeed in showing that all C arguments for P(T) fails, then A reduced P(T) back to .5. A needs to offer a case against the existence of God to increase P(not-T), which will decrease P(T), to be justified in believing that God does not exist.
Redefining atheism as “lack of belief in God” fails, I believe, because “lack of belief in God”, by itself, only shows a psychological state of a subject and not the reality of outside world. It does not show whether God exist or not. This redefinition fails because it shifts the discussion’s focus away from ontology of an object(i.e. God) to epistemology of a subject.(i.e an atheist). Example: John Doe may have a lack of belief that Jane Doe is having an affair, but that does not show if Jane Doe is having an affair or not. She may be having an affair even though John Does lacks a belief that she is having an affair.
Question: When is absence of evidence evidence of absence?
Bibliography:
Nielsen Kai (1971) Reason and Practice. New York: Harper & Row
Cover photo-credit: Andrew David
Prayson Daniel
Your article is very well put. I wish I had some of that information when our daughter was questioning her faith in God. Thanks for visiting my site. Linda
Like your daughter, I also walked out after my daddy failed to answer my question. God is grate and it is He who keeps us in Himself. He used a beautiful girl, who is now my wife, to bring me back.
Ever since I vow to know what I believe and what reasons I have for believing it and hopeful help those who are in my position then.
Thank you for your comment Linda
You put this very well. Thanks for visiting my blog – it’s good to find someone else struggling to articulate the same issues.
Hello Sir,
Club Schadenfreude has a post about yours. I’ve responded to it. If you’d like the responce It’s here:
http://ryftkohiahpapers.wordpress.com/29-2/
God bless,
Joseph Armstrong
RYFTKOHIAH.WordPress.com
And my answers to A&L’s claims 1-4
No, AL, not “pissed” at all. Just amused that you insist on lying so ineptly. I’m laughing at you.
1. I have said that there is no evidence that there was any 8 people we came from. And my link does address evolutionary research, aka the bottle neck. Pity that you can’t see that. Alas, for you, there are not “oneY chromosome and three main mitochondrial lineages world wide”. That’s only repeated on creationist websites and blogs, not in actual scientific literature, but please do show where it is if you can. I’d be happy to be shown wrong. I showed you the link to the bottleneck article which does not support your claim. Here is another article, which shows your claims about “one y chromosome and 3 main mitochondrial lines” again to be wrong since they occurred at different times: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam Here is research that shows how humans spread and how their genetics spread, not from the Mid-East at all: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2156-2-13.pdf I am always satisfied when a creationist who wants to claim that evolution can’t possibly be true, needs it to be true for claims about molecular evolution and genetics supporting their myths. You see, A&L, you are a hypocrite and so easily demonstrated to be so.
In addition, the Torah account does not require that there be one y chromosome and 3 mitochondrial lineages. That could be true if we knew more about the wife of Noah and the wives of the sons. We don’t. As so many creationists do, you make baseless claims and bastardize science when you think it will work for you.
2. This is hilarious! Again, poor creationists can’t show any evidence for a world-wide flood and will do their best to ignore that other myths do not match theirs. Alas for you, A&L, the pygmy creation story does not have “two” similarities to the bible flood story. It says that the flood preceeded mankind, and that is not at all what your creation story says. Again, we have no evidence for a global flood. You want to claim that a flood would create layering as we see it in sedimentary rocks. Now, I request you to do an experiment. Find a clear bottle, a gallon juice bottle will do well. Put sand, gravel, clay, silt, grass and sticks and some bugs if you’d like. Fill with water so things can move about nicely. Then shake it up violently, just like the creationist flood claims have with their fountains and springs opening up, the continents shooting around and at least in one version, an ice asteroid hitting the earth (again, even flood claimants can’t agree on how it happened. So how can we tell?). Now, let the resultant slurry set until the water clears.What do we have left? Well, it’s not distinct layers of sediments like we see in reality. We have one layer, graded from fine to coarse within itself. We see that yet one more creationist claim is a lie. Now, since I’m pretty sure you would never actually do this experimetn for yourself since it would show you wrong, those who are interested in just what happens can see Potholer54’s video on YouTube doing exactly that experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY I mistakenly referred to him as Potholer45 on an earlier post.
3. Yes, I’ve asked you when the magical mystical bible flood occurred. And I do love it that rather than answering me, you try to come up with an excuse “You say your biggest question to me is “When did the flood occur?” Why would this be your biggest question? I don’t get it. Isn’t the greater issue IF it occurred?”
You can’t answer and that’s so cute! You see, I knew you’d be scared to death of this question since it shows have no idea. I know this mythical flood didn’t occur. But you have claimed that it did. So, I’m asking you when it occurred. Surely, you know, right? If you have all of this evidence you claim you do, why you should be able to point right to when it occurred and since we’d have both evidence and an approximate time to know what it impacted, you’d have essentially won the argument since you’d have the evidence on your side. But you don’t. No evidence of such a flood and not even a time period to point to so we could look for this evidence that you lack.
4. Yep, I called you an outright liar. Until I see evidence supporting your nonsense, you are a liar since I have shown you the facts and you intentionally refuse to acknowledge them. Of course you don’t bother defending yourself, you tell another lie. Let’s see what I really said.
“Even more compelling is the fact that the geologic evidence is overwhelmingly consistent, not with a placid uniformitarian sea, but with a violent catastrophic flood. It just happens to not be a respectable position to believe this.” This is an outright lie. I do recall that your god doesn’t like these at all. You depend on ignorance from your creationist friends and creating strawmen based on long superseded information to support your flagging faith.”
You have lied about the geological evidence being “overwhelmingly consistent” with a violent catastrophic flood. It is not. We see no huge layer as I described above in #2. You have tried to claim that geologists believe in a “placid uniformitarian sea” and they do not. The idea that no catastrophic events ever happen and all geological events are slow and gradual is believed in anymore and has not been believed in since the 1800s. James Hutton in the 1700s started the idea of uniformitarianism, in contrast to catastrophism. It claimed that there was no things like magical floods and it went too far one way and was shown wrong because we know that catastrophic things like volcanoes happen, that glacial lakes suddenly release and cause things like the Channeled Scablands, etc. Charles Lyell was one of the main proponents for this in the 1800s and he died in 1875. Modern geologists do not hold to Hutton’s and Lyell’s strict gradualism. So there you have attempted to create a strawman based on superseded information from the 1700s and 1800s. You have intentionally ignored that geologists do not believe in this anymore.
Thank you so much, A&L. You’ve served as a perfect subject to demonstrate just how inept creationists are.
To Clubschadenfreude: I watched the Potholer video. It was a shining example of a strawman argument since it misrepresents the creationist position. You seem to be basing the bulk of your claim that “there is not one bit” of geologic evidence for a global flood on the fact that “we see no single huge layer.” Then you cite an experiment with a gallon juice bottle to disprove creationist claims, as though the settling out of mud and debris in still water simulates a global flood. But creationists envision the flood as a violent event that probably included volcanic and crustal plate movement. We don’t have to wonder how moving water can lay down sediment layers because it’s been observed, both in controlled experiments and in nature. Lab examples: Schieber, J., Southard, J., & Thaisen, K., Accretion of mudstone beds from migrating floccule ripples, Science 318 (5857): 1760-1763, 2007. See also a reprint of Guy Berthault’s research presented to the French Academy of Sciences: http://creation.com/experiments-on-lamination-of-sediments. Also, Makse, H.A., Havlin, S., King, P.R. & Stanley, H.E., 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386: 379-382.
A field example: it is known that the Mt. St. Helens eruption produced a 25ft thick deposit of layered sediment in one day. If a local catastrophic event did this in a day, it seems reasonable to expect the greatest catastrophic water event in world history would do the something similar, but on a much larger scale. The Torah flood would not have produced one huge layer as you say. It is perfectly reasonable based upon observation and experimentation to expect the Torah flood to produce exactly what we see in the geologic column – many layers of sediment filled with millions of rapidly buried life forms, distributed as we find them.
You wrote: “Okay, if you want to play this game. What strata are these? [vast areas of rapidly deposited strata spanning continents] They all have names so since you claim to know so much, name them….”
The Tapeats Sandstone & Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire US & into Canada, & even across the ocean to England. This is speaks of large scale catastrophic forces such as one would expect from the Torah flood.
Also, British geologist Derek Ager points out that the chalk beds that form the white cliffs of Dover in S England can be traced into France, N Germany, S Scandanavia, to Poland, Bulgaria and to Turkey & Egypt. I don’t see sedimentary layers being laid down across such large expanses today, do you?
You wrote, “Again, the strata these are? The fossil beds? Surely you have their names? (referring to fossil graveyards of marine, land creatures, and insects…all buried together, and buried rapidly.)
Does it matter if I know their names? Do such fossil graveyards exist or not? And if so, how can you say they are not consistent with what one would expect to see from a violent global flood designed to kill everything? I’ve read about fossil graveyards in the Gobi Desert in Central Asia, the Bone Cabin Quarry in Wyoming, Alberta Canada, Agate Springs Nebraska, and Tanzania. 80 fossilized whales buried in the Caldera Basin in Chile. !87 parrot-beaked dinosaurs buried in Mongolia. These are large numbers of large creatures. Preserving them would’ve required rapid burial under huge amounts of sediment. You can google the turtles fossilized in the act of mating if you’re not familiar with them.
You wrote, “…No, dear we can’t agree on the lies you tell so badly. You sadly do not know of plastic deformation and the problems that occur when you do try to fold mud e.g. you don’t get hairpin angles at all the layers squish together…”
It is true that there are instances where folding has occurred while the rock was solid, but there are other instances where the minerals in the rock indicate that they were not heated much, and seem to have been folded while unconsolidated. (Chelseigh Formation, greywacke & shale on the Turon River, west of Sofala, New South Wales, Australia.)
Another example is the Grand Canyon strata which extends over 250 miles into Eastern AZ where they are a mile lower in elevation. Supposedly the uplift of the GC occurred 70 mil yrs ago – hundreds of millions of years after the sediments were deposited. Yet, while the basement rock was fractured by the uplift, the sedimentary layers on top are bent with no evidence of great stress – no elongated sand grains or breaking and recrystallization of the cementing minerals. Rather, the evidence points to the entire 4000 ft thickness of strata being still soft when it was deformed, soon after it was deposited. This is consistent with the Torah flood model.
(At last someone attempts to respond to the genetic question…)
You wrote: “I have said that there is no evidence that there was any 8 people we came from…”
You’re wrong. The Gen 9:18 is a truth claim that is testable with modern genetics research. So far the research is consistent with the Torah.
“…And my link does address evolutionary research, aka the bottle neck. Pity that you can’t see that…”
Bottlenecks are a different issue. Your link did not address my point. If you think it did, then show me.
“…Alas, for you, there are not “one Y chromosome and three main mitochondrial lineages world wide”. That’s only repeated on creationist websites and blogs, not in actual scientific literature, but please do show where it is if you can. I’d be happy to be shown wrong.”
Then this should make you happy:
[The Y chromosome] Jobling, M.A.. Tyler-Smith, C., The human Y chromosome: an evolutionary marker comes of age, Nature Reviews 4: 598-612,2003
[Evolutionists have labeled the 3 main mitochondrial lineages M, N, & R]: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10…/annurev.genet.41.110306.130407
You continue: “…Here is another article, which shows your claims about “one y chromosome and 3 main mitochondrial lines” again to be wrong since they occurred at different times…”
Again you misunderstand the argument. My point is that this is occurring AT PRESENT, in the human population. This is consistent with the Torah’’s statement.
“..Here is research that shows how humans spread and how their genetics spread, not from the Mid-East at all…”
Here is an article by a PhD geneticist, (which I am not,) showing how the story of African origins is based on a set of unproven evolutionary assumptions: http://creation.com/neutral-model-of-evolution-recent-african-origins
You continue, “…I am always satisfied when a creationist who wants to claim that evolution can’t possibly be true, needs it to be true for claims about molecular evolution and genetics supporting their myths. You see, A&L, you are a hypocrite and so easily demonstrated to be so.”
Not sure what you mean here, but it sounds like you’re demonstrating the usual materialist/evolutionist failure to acquire an understanding of creationism before criticizing it. Scientific creationists fully embrace observable phenomena such as mutations and natural selection. They simply don’t think these are sufficient to take us from microbes to Mother Theresa, because this hasn’t been shown.
You conclude this point with: “In addition, the Torah account does not require that there be one y chromosome and 3 mitochondrial lineages. That could be true if we knew more about the wife of Noah and the wives of the sons. We don’t. As so many creationists do, you make baseless claims and bastardize science when you think it will work for you.”
It’s not a “baseless claim.” One Y chromosome because the 3 sons came from Noah. Unless there was a mutation, each of the sons would’ve carried Noah’s Y chromosome.
Mitochondrial DNA is passed on from the female, so we would expect 3 mtDNA lineages originating from the 3 daughters-in-law, who we assume were not related to Noah. Please explain how this is a “baseless claim” and a “bastardization of science.”
Moving on to your next topic, you state: “…2. This is hilarious! Again, poor creationists can’t show any evidence for a world-wide flood and will do their best to ignore that other myths do not match theirs. Alas for you, A&L, the pygmy creation story does not have “two” similarities to the bible flood story. It says that the flood preceeded mankind, and that is not at all what your creation story says.”
Very good! Another difference would be that the flood in the Torah had nothing to do with a chameleon. However, my point all along has been that all of these worldwide, 500+ stories are derivative of an event that actually happened, and many have similarities to the Torah. It’s not my fault that you picked a story that proved my point. The story you cited mentions 1) “a great flood that spread all over the earth”, and that, 2) the world was populated by the human survivors of the flood. Those are similarities. If you can’t admit even that, then your dogmatic faith is blinding you to an unusual extent.
Your second-to-last retort: “…I know this mythical flood didn’t occur. But you have claimed that it did. So, I’m asking you when it occurred. Surely, you know, right? If you have all of this evidence you claim you do, why you should be able to point right to when it occurred and since we’d have both evidence and an approximate time to know what it impacted, you’d have essentially won…”
It depends on if you want to keep this discussion about observational science, in which case I’d have to give an estimated number in the 10s of thousands of years at most, based on several observable dating indicators. If you want me to appeal to revelation, I think most creationists would say the Bible places the flood at around 4500 years ago.
Finally, your attempt to prove my using a strawman argument fails:
“This is an outright lie…Modern geologists do not hold to Hutton’s and Lyell’s strict gradualism. So there you have attempted to create a strawman based on superseded information from the 1700s and 1800s. You have intentionally ignored that geologists do not believe in this anymore.”
I’m well aware that modern geology no longer holds to the extreme uniformitarianism of Lyell. Modern geology has essentially been forced to accept flood/catastrophic scenarios to explain the geologic record (so long as they steer wide of accepting the Genesis flood.) Both sides need each other to keep each other honest, because there are plenty of embarrassing examples of “objective scientists” on BOTH sides, leaping to conclusions based on their respective dogmas. But my statement to you stands, and is not a straw man. You ARE a gradualist. Potholer is a gradualist. The proof of this is that you believe that the earth is billions of years old, and that the geologic record reflects this. You can’t have a billions-of-year-old-earth dogma without uniformitarianism/gradualism. In contrast, I believe the Torah flood was a historic event that altered the face of the planet only a few thousand years ago, and that most of what we see in the rocks can be explained by this event. That’s an enormous difference.
Finally, I wonder if you forgot to answer my question to you:
“Do you admit to holding to any dogmatic beliefs?”
Why does any of this matter, and who gives a rip?
If the Torah is true, then love and free will exist. And I get to argue that I have a transcendent basis for believing that all human beings have intrinsic worth. I get to argue that you are valuable because you bear the image of God.
In contrast you have to argue that you have no objective, intrinsic worth, and have “no more free will than a bowl of sugar” (A. Cashmore)
Given the horrific implications of what you believe, If there is any rational possibility that the Torah is true, I will gladly hold to that. But as it turns out, that possibility is far from remote.
Whoa — you are way too smart for average me. But then, that’s what makes reading you fun. Love this question: “When is absence of evidence evidence of absence?” Answer: never (I think)
art & life. I’ll be back to your lovely “numbered” nonsense. I do most like #5 with the utter ignorance about geology. Let’s see. “You should know that there are vast areas of rapidly deposited strata spanning continents, and even between continents, with no evidence of evolution between the layers.”
Okay, if you want to play this game. What strata are these? They all have names so since you claim to know so much, name them. Yep, there are places where the layers were eroded back, so we’re missing some here and there, but funny how we can always match them up again. Those are called geological unconformities and alas, creationists forget that erosion and deposition keep working, unlike the lack of same for their flood. No one big layer that we should see.
“There are marine, land creatures, and insects that did not live together, but all buried together, and buried rapidly. (In Germany they recently found fossilized turtles buried in the act of mating. Freaking remarkable.)”
Again, the strata these are? The fossil beds? Surely you have their names?
“We have dinos buried in chalk beds. (If you’re a geologist then you know what chalk is composed of.)”
Yep, I know what chalk is. Again, where are these fossils and what beds are they in? You see, A&L, you have to actually have citations when you claim such things are real. Because I can look them up. But then, that is a problem for you, isn’t it?
“Hopefully we can agree that rocks are hard and do not bend, yet we often see so-named “millions of years of sedimentary rock” bent at hairpin angles with no fracturing – obviously folded when the layers were all still wet.”
No, dear we can’t agree on the lies you tell so badly. You sadly do not know of plastic deformation and the problems that occur when you do try to fold mud e.g. you don’t get hairpin angles at all the layers squish together. Although, if you think you can form wet sediments by folding, I want to see you do it. Heck, you can do it right, since you claim that’s how it happened?
I live in the Applachians and we have lots of that sedimentary folding. I can see it everyday. I’d suggest watching some of Potholer45′s videos on youtube to see how ridiculous you are with your claims.
“You may decide that these facts (and there are many more) do not conclusively prove a worldwide flood, but they are certainly consistent with one. For you to say there is “not one bit of evidence” is a dogmatic faith statement. The truth is that we’re all looking at the same evidence, and you interpret it according to your preferred dogma, and I interpret it according to mine. Your penchant for hyperbole and overstatement merely shows your refusal to allow other reasonable possibilities because it would mess with your preferred identity as an atheist.”
Nope, no facts presented by you at all. I know physics. What you claim would make mudpies, not layers. Just amazing ignorance and more lies based on said ignorance. I’ll address 1-4 in a day or two.
Prayson, you take a rather large ssumption and make it the basis for your argument. You suggest that one might produce “evidence for the existence of God”. None has ever been offered.
My understanding of Christian dogma stipulates that the miracle is the faith in God.
For me, an uncommitted atheist, that seems pretty huge and should be enough for any man. Evidence should be borne from your acts of commission and ommission. There is no theorem that proves God. That would take away the biggest part of religion. the only part that matters, faith.
Be happy if you have it, from what I understand, it is a gift from God. So certainly you can understand that someone who has not benefitted from this gift might be reluctant to go all in.
@Art life and Notes.
Why did you not answer the animal dispersal pattern question?
The link is to a Creationist site. You cannot be serious?
Are you truly and honestly suggesting that you have derived your scientific material from Creationist Ministries?
Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear. I am nervous to even consider that you might also believe the claims of Ken Ham that he found chariot wheels on the floor of the red Sea.I think you should go and see a professional….maybe within the medical or psychiatric field?
To Arkenaten, who wrote: “The link is to a Creationist site. You cannot be serious?…”
Um…you asked me several questions about the plausibility of the Noah’s Ark story. How much sense would it make for me to send you to a site that only supports evolutionist dogma?
”Are you truly and honestly suggesting that you have derived your scientific material from Creationist Ministries?”
Not at all. Both sides derive their scientific material from the same place – the observable universe. However, as I already stated, data must be interpreted. I sent you to an article by a PhD Chemist, explaining how the data can be interpreted to fit the creationist view. You seem to have bought into the fairly recent idea that an interpretation of the data can only be science if the interpretation is “naturalistic.” But this idea is simply materialist evolutionists redefining science so that the only possible answer can be an evolutionary one. Science progressed for centuries without such a definition. Not only is this irrational, but it has placed materialists in a completely dogmatic, faith position. More so even than that of creationists.
”Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear. I am nervous to even consider that you might also believe the claims of Ken Ham that he found chariot wheels on the floor of the red Sea…”
I don’t use Ken Ham’s site, and I haven’t heard about this, but if he can prove that he’s found such a thing then I’d believe it. Wouldn’t you? Or do you only accept findings that support your dogma? I would believe in flying pink unicorns if there were indisputable observable evidence that they exist(ed). Wouldn’t you?
“Why did you not answer the animal dispersal pattern question?”
Because I have a full plate, and I thought you could read about it yourself. But since this seems to be a serious question for you I’ll answer it. There are several known mechanisms by which animal and plant life have, or plausibly could have, dispersed around the world. Again, both creationists and evolutionists agree on these: 1) transoceanic transport on rafts of vegetation, 2) transport by human migration, possibly via land bridges 3) animal migration and partial extinction, 4) speciation.
If you assume the science presents a clear cut case supporting evolutionary dogma, you are incorrect. For example, if you believe that living marsupials are found only in Australia and South America because they evolved there, then you must explain why marsupial fossils have been found on every continent. If you believe that placentals evolved in the northern hemisphere, then you have to explain why a (supposed) 120 million year old placental fossil was recently found in Australia. This article goes into greater detail, for those who are actually interested in understanding a rational creationist viewpoint: http://creation.com/biogeography
As for you, Ark, I would urge you to at least read the following article. I think it would be helpful to you. It touches on biogeography, but what’s really great is that it’s a dialogue between a creationist and an evolutionist. Both are informed and intelligent. It’s a respectful discussion between grown-ups with no snide insults, or the kind of pompous, blind certainty that you exhibit in all of your posts: http://creation.com/genetics-geographical-distribution
“When is absence of evidence evidence of absence?”
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However it justifies scepticism. If I say I have 6 elephants in my back garden, you might be sceptical if you’d never seen them, nor any footprints or droppings etc. You would be justified in your statement ‘I do not believe that you have 6 elephants in your garden’—because you have nothing to base that belief on, so from what you’ve seen (or not seen, rather) you can quite reasonably doubt my claim.
Now an atheist, as far as I am concerned is someone who does not believe in God. Not someone who believes that there is no God. So as with the elephant example, I see no sufficient evidence upon which to base any belief, therefore I do not believe in God—I’m an atheist.
I cannot agree more. Thanks Laurens
True. Yet the Christians believe their god is Jesus, a belief that has been foisted on humanity
at what cost? And it is continually paying, make NO mistake.
Such claims must be able to stand on their own two feet, and as we dismiss the nonsense claims of Islam so should claims of divinity and such like made by Christians be dismissed.
It is a doctrine built primarily on a foundation of lies implemented through fear, and even a cursory read of the bible will quickly confirm this.
An excellent exercise for every doubter – every believer, in fact, is to scout the blogs and read the accounts of de-conversion by former devout Christians, why they de-converted and the incredible sense of relief and freedom they discover, often for the first time in their lives – when the realise that everything concerning Christianity and the Bible they had been inculcated with is absolute rubbish.
Prayson,
I’d like to submit a few problems with your argument here.
1. Atheists don’t believe in gods. As of me. I don’t believe any of them. It’s not personal, yours is but one among many similar fantasies that started long ago in prehistory when peoples got into believing that any kinds of natural phenomena were gods. Thus, referring to my disbelief as not believing in “God” is a misrepresentation. I don;t believe yours or any other.
2. Many forms of the Christian god are demonstrably false just because they are nonsensical. So, it is not just that the arguments for its existence fail. It’s often that the concept is nonsense.
3. It does not help that your god as any other gods, are indistinguishable from mere imagination.
4. Agnosticism is compatible with atheism. Agnosticism is a declaration of knowledge, while atheism is a declaration of disbelief. As such, most of my atheist friends are agnostic atheists. They will tell you that they don’t know that there’s no gods (see that they will not refer to “God,” but “gods”), but they see no reason to believe in any of them.
5. That a probability sums to 1. It does not mean that the probability for “God” is 0.5. For one, you are forgetting the many other gods ever imagined by humanity. That gives us many many many scenarios. Therefore, if we were to argue for a probability, we would have to define the god we are talking about. Most are complete nonsense (like most Christian gods, of which there are many). Those that are not nonsense, are still hard to tell apart from imagination, and are useless as beliefs.
6. For the sake of experimentation, if we forgot about the nonsensical nature of most believed gods, then yours would have a very tiny probability of being the real one. That without taking into account mixtures of possibly existing, and competing, gods and such.
Your problem is that you don’t seem to understand the nature of disbelief. If you want to argue from some point of neutrality, you would have to start by admitting that your god is but one among many. You would not like it if a Muslim assumed that I don’t believe in his god, or Hindus assumed that I just don’t believe in their gods, and forgot that I don’t believe in yours either, would you?
There’s no red herring in pink unicorns. I understand why you don’t like it. But your refusal to understand the point made by agnosticism about pink unicorns comes to show that you truly don’t understand what disbelief is. We see your god as any other fantasy. Nothing fallacious about it.
I hope this helps you better understand atheism. At least the kind I find most often.
Redefining atheism as “lack of belief in God” fails,”"
Oooh, I missed this juicy one-liner.
Naughty PD…tut tut.
This is the trouble with Christians they think their god is so special. Well, sorry to say it isn’t. In fact , I’d put several gods above the man-god you worship.
For the record; Atheists do not believe in gods. Plural and no capital. Are we getting it yet? Good, I hope so.
See, ignorance is curable! You don;t want to remain stupid , now do you? Çourse not, and I’ll help wherever I can. Bless me.
“I blog for the love and glory of our Triune God. ”
Then you blog from ignorance. The Trinity is a man made concept with no basis in fact whatsoever.
On the back of this , how can anything you say be taken seriously?
I believe that is a different topic for a different time. I would love to address it, but I am afraid it would be chasing a red herring
Thank you though.
You think, so?
I would venture that it is fundamental to everything you believe.
It is unfair to tacitly argue against atheism, or any worldview contrary to your own, if you are not being scrupulously honest about your own position; which you are not.
Whether this is by design or merely ignorance of the facts, it should be incumbent upon you to establish where this belief in the Trinity originated.
If you choose not to , then why would anyone bother to answer the question you pose?
Thank you again Arkenaten. I believe it is fair to argue not against atheism but the notion that atheism is presumed true given insufficient evidence for existence of God.
To contend that belief x is false, I do not have to show that belief y is true. Arkenaten, what I contended above, has been contended also by atheist philosophers.
Thank you once again
appeal to authority, nice.
Yes. IEP expounded Appeal to Authority:
Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious. I was simply pointing out that what I claim, is not unique to theists, but also some atheists do to.
You miss the point (on purpose, I would suggest) and are beginning the theological two step.
Let me try to simplify it for you.Christians are such a stubborn lot after all, are they not? There would be no argument for or against atheism or atheists if the notion of a god had not been posited in the first place.
In your particular case – Christian – that god is the man-god character named Jesus, (Please note”Not Chrestus or Christus) found solely within the covers of the New Testament, without which you would have absolutely no notion of Jesus.
Thus it is incumbent on you to present your bona fides before even considering a challenge to the notion that atheism is false doctrine. To proceed further without establishing your credentials is both disingenuous and hypocritical.
Christians aren’t hypocrites are they PD?
Thanks Arkenaten.
You might be correct that Christians are stubborn, and Jesus is solely within the covers on the New Testament and they are hypocrites.
I am stubborn and a huge hypocrite. But this is irrelevant to the case I present above because I did not contend that Christians are not stubborn, nor about Jesus nor about existence of God.
The case I presented was to question, not atheism, but presumptions atheism, namely atheism is true given insufficient evidence for belief in God.
Yours,
Prayson
LOL You cannot presume anything about atheism unless you acknowledge where it came from.
There would not be atheists, if there were no theists in the first place.
Thus, whatever you believe a bout atheism is irrelevant as it is only there because of your (theist) belief.
So, show me your credentials and I’ll show you mine, okay?
Fairs fair after all, right?
Presumptous atheism is a belief that atheism is a default position given insufficent evidence for exstence of God. One does not need to know theism to show that that this belief is unwarranted. Critical thinking is all you need.
You are still not getting…now pay attention.
Firstly, even the word atheist derives from theist, see?
Second, YOUR god is a narrative construct from a book called the bible, who’s divinity was decided by the Church, and who’s historicity is still not cut and dried.
Soooo, before the bible was released, how did you know about Jesus? It wasn’t scratched in a cave in Northern France, now was it? No sir. See, it is easy to figure out once you face the truth.
Fir the last time, otherwise I really will begin to think you are being dense on purpose:
Bible – Jesus – Christian Theist.
Then came the atheist.
So, show me your god first then I’ll show you my non-god.
“Thank you Arkenaten. I believe we are not in the same page, thus I will step down. ”
Actually, it is the same topic alas you have deigned to ignore the true issue preferring to argue semantics, merely to point score.
This is fine by me, it is something Christians are quite adept at , but doesn’t enamor them to anyone who might desire a normal rational conversation as this attitude always renders Christianity moot.
You cannot realistically or fairly argue for your position unless you are able to justify it.
Christianity and the god you worship has to stand on its own two feet before it can deign to belittle other worldviews.
It fails miserably as every argument, and its proponents aptly demonstrate.
Hi Ark,
I look to our recorded past, and present, and I see brutal war and hate. I see ruthless dictators killing their own people. atrocities done in the “name of religion”. I see starvation and suffering, rape and murder, and I see our precious planet being tortured, it’s air, rivers and oceans polluted. I see selfish man unable to see beyond tomorrow in their lust for power and money, their short lives consumed by greed. Is there any hope for us? Will it always be this way?
I could go on, and it is much worse, but you get the point, science has failed us. The Godless man has failed us. If only it was written on everyone’s heart to love their neighbor as they love themselves, but no, we are indeed free to choose to kill and destroy, or alternatively, cherish life and build hope, or worse than any evil, be indifferent to the plight of the evil and the suffering it brings.
Are you happy with the two extremes of the haters and killers versus the defenders of the helpless? I know I’m not.
The implication is clear in Isaiah 44:6-7: The burden of proof is on the detractor of God’s prophetic word to demonstrate his own ability to bring the future to pass.
The modern mind equates ancient thinking with primitive thinking. The language of critical scholarship reduces much of the Bible to quaint superstition and cultural and intellectual bias. How does the skeptic, who says we should give up on the “dangerous” idea of a divine utopia, face up to the following plain statement from the pages of Isaiah?
“This is what the Lord says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it into nonsense, who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers . . .” Isaiah 44:24-26
These are powerful words and a serious challenge to the one who would deny their author. It is God’s desire to save all the earth from the pain and suffering that has plagued humanity. “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other”. (Isaiah 45:22) These are not the words of a human being with no power to effect his promises.
The Bible is not primitive thinking. In numerous instances the Bible contains medical, hygienic, and psychological information that far predates man’s actual discoveries of related principles in these scientific fields. The medical instructions given by Moses to the Israelites some 3500 years ago were not only far superior to the practices of contemporary cultures, they also exceeded medical standards practiced as recently as 100 years ago. Where did Moses get this advanced information?
The millennial prophecies of Isaiah and other teachers of ancient Israel reveal a God who promises an answer to all our challenges, if only…
LeRoy
Science has not failed us – humans fail; this is part of growth . The rest of this drivel is not worth the time you spent typing it.
Moses was a narrative construct and did not exist. Period.
Isaiah. RFLMAO.
Reborns and evangelicals are silly people who have no real handle in life.
You have my pity.
No…go and read a worthwhile book and use the bible for those moments in the loo when things get tough.
How has the godless man failed us? Has anyone killed in the name of godless?
It will always be like that as long as some people harbor an idea they have another life in another place after they are dead. Either we tell each other we have one life here and we must make it the best and work towards that or believe in ghosts and then everything is permitted!
I need to know if your doctor consults the bible or uses methods that have been improved upon through scientific inquiry?
Those are the words of a priest who wants absolute power by claiming he speaks for god and he knows what this god wants! There is nothing powerful or special in those words.
To Robert Nielson, William Thames, Tomy, John Zande: At the risk of leaving the topic of philosophy, I want to address the repeated claims that there is no evidence for the existence of YHWH, and by extension, no evidence that the Judeo-Christian scriptures are His revelation. Of particular interest is Robert Neilson’s early comment, “If there was proof of [His} existence we would have found it by now.” My response is that, the more we advance scientifically, the greater the possibilities for testing the truth claims of the Bible. One exciting new example is the field of genetics research. Modern genetics gives us the ability to test stories of history. This was not possible before. There are statements in the Torah that are testable. One such statement is found in Genesis 9:18 &19 which states that the entire population of the earth came from the 3 sons of Noah. We now know that Noah’s sons would have carried one Y chromosome. From Noah’s daughters-in-law we would expect to see 3 mitochondrial lineages in the human population. In fact, this is what (evolutionary) genetics researchers have found – Y chromosomes are similar (so far) over the entire earth, and (so far) there are 3 main mitochondrial DNA lineages in the world’s population.
When one considers that many unrelated, worldwide cultures have ancient flood stories, and that the observable geological record is compatible with the account in the Torah, I would like for someone to explain how this does not constitute evidence for the reliability of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. If these writings were the result of mere human invention, these stories shouldn’t even be in the ballpark by now. Instead, here we are, having this discussion because there continues to be a seemingly impossible correspondence between the Bible and the observable universe.
I should mention that modern genetics research is also friendly to the story of the tower of Babel. For a more detailed discussion and corroborating reference, visit: On Making Biblical Faith Seem Stupid – part 3 @ http://www.artandlifenotes.wordpress.com
Perhaps, I misunderstand you, but are you arguing that there is scientific evidence that Noah’s Ark and flood actually happened? I would criticise this, but its too easy. Just because many cultures reference a flood, simply means small floods were common. It is not evidence that the entire world was covered in water. You seem to be taking quite a leap of the imagination to claim genetics supports the Bible. Please clarify.
You understand me correctly. I’m well aware of how silly that claim must sound to you, but I can’t get around the fact that new scientific evidence in support of the Judeo-Christian scriptures keeps showing up. I think the genetics research is freaking remarkable. You say criticizing this is too easy, but please humor me. I’m interested in hearing an intelligent atheist response or two. I don’t understand why you think I’ve made a leap of imagination in claiming genetics supports the Bible. I gave you a scientifically testable statement from the Torah, then I explained how genetics research is consistent with that statement. Please explain where I’m leaping. It doesn’t sound like you read the reference I posted. Here’s a more direct link: http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
There are some 500 hundred stories of a worldwide flood from all around the world, including stories from ancient Mesopotamia, the Aztecs, the Australian Aborigines, the Bahnars of China, the native Americans, Egypt, Peru, & Scandinavia to name a few. Most speak of a worldwide flood and many bear significant similarities to the account in the Torah. It’s true that one possibility is that all these divergent cultures coincidentally developed stories of the earth being destroyed by water with only a couple/few people surviving. But how likely is that? It’s true that another possibility is that every person that has existed on the planet since the flood was descended from the sons of Noah as the Torah states, and that these different cultures have retained some scrap of memory from the flood event. Even more compelling is the fact that the geologic evidence is overwhelmingly consistent, not with a placid uniformitarian sea, but with a violent catastrophic flood. It just happens to not be a respectable position to believe this.
“Art”, your claims are false. There are no indications that we came from 8 people after a flood that left no evidence: read the article here to find out that your claims about how “freaking remarkable” the research is a lie: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/how-big-was-the-human-population-bottleneck-not-anything-close-to-2/ You’ll find the link to the Nature article there. I always find it hilarous when Chrisitans are so desperate that they invoke science and the scientific method when they ignorantly think it supports them but attack that same method and evidence when it shows their religion to be utter nonsense. It’s so cute to see the pure hypocrisy.
There are indeed a lot of flood myths. However, not all civilizations have them and those that do have them do not match in what they claim as opposed to your false claim that they do. You can find many of these myths here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html One of my favorites that from the Pygmy: “Chameleon heard a strange noise, like water running, in a tree, but at that time there was no water in the world. He cut open the trunk, and water came out in a great flood that spread all over the earth. The first human couple emerged with the water.” Totally not like your Christian myth.
Most if not all civilizations arose around rivers. Rivers often flood and that makes a great part of a just-so story to tell a myth about evil and good. My biggest question to you, “art” is to tell me when this flood occured? Surely we should be able to tell, yes? But we can’t.
“Even more compelling is the fact that the geologic evidence is overwhelmingly consistent, not with a placid uniformitarian sea, but with a violent catastrophic flood. It just happens to not be a respectable position to believe this.” This is an outright lie. I do recall that your god doesn’t like these at all. You depend on ignorance from your creationist friends and creating strawmen based on long superseded information to support your flagging faith.
There is not one bit of evidence supporting a massive global flood. I’m a geologist and I know. If there was this magical flood with the violent spurting of “fountains” and “springs” like , we would have one huge layer of sediment, sorted within the layer from coarse on the bottom to fine on the top. Within this layer, there would be fossils of humans and animals (including dinos) sorted by hydrologic interaction with similar things together. This would require humans and small dinos like deinonychus being found together. They are not. You can find all of the other reasons why the claim that the global flood was real fail so badly here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html and you can watch a video demonstrating how they fail here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
Yes but how did all the animals fit on the boat? Your argument is almost reasonable if you ignore the actual story. Unfortunately, lacking qualification in genetics or world culture & myths I cannot verify or refute your claims and have to take your word for it. Its perfectly reasonable for different cultures to have flood myths, after all early civilizations were built alongside rivers, which occasionally flood. However, I would have to see the stories themselves to see how strong the resemblance to Noah’s Flood is.
There is also the point that we now the Bible is roughly 4,000 years old and that does not leave enough time for the world to repopulate, spread out and develop different racial features. If all these cultures are descendant from Noah, then surely they should have other Bible stories too? (I intend to do a blog post over the weekend, fully explaining why I don’t believe Noah’s Ark is a real story).
All we need to rationally answer this question is to see that it is possible in a way that is consistent with the account in the Torah. It happens that it is well within the realm of possibility, and wouldn’t even require a miracle. It’s pretty simple: Again, the Torah makes the “mistake” of giving the dimensions of the ark. A scientist named Woodmorappe has written a book, “Noah’s Ark: A feasibility Study.” It’s quite long, so here’s a link that provides a summary. Be sure and read the comments following. You might want to read this article before you do your blog, as all of your objections have probably been answered. http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-the-ark
Also, 4000 years is plenty of time for the world to re-populate, spread, and develop races. It’s actually evolutionary theory that has the problem making population numbers fit with their dogma, according to known measurable rates. Again the real problem here is not that any of this has been scientifically shown to be impossible, it’s that it’s extremely unfashionable and embarrassing for an intelligent person to admit they believe in “Noah’s ark and a big flood.” In other words, it’s a “heart” issue, not an evidential one.
Oh my the nonsense here. Woodmorappe (real name: Jan Peczkis) supposedly got a Bachelor of Arts (not Science) in Biology and Geology and a master of arts (not scienc) in Geology (I have my bachelors of science in Geology from Clarion U of PA). And, not so strangely, we have nowhere mentioning where he got these degrees, not even on his bio from Answers in Genesis. Now how would someone “forget” to show where he got his degrees from if he’s such person who wants to declare how valid his degrees are? In any case, he is not a “scientist”. Then you claim that 4000 years is plenty of time to explain the diversity and spread of animals and plants. If so, please show how. Tell me how plants were magically regenerated when they were covered with miles of supposed water. Tell me how the koala did the backstroke to Australia.
You also try to claim that evolutionary theory has trouble with the population numbers. Okay, where’s the evidence of that? Surely you have it, right since you’ve made the claim? You see, baseless claims by creationists, especially those who try to lie about scientists supporting their nonsense, are worthless without evidence. As for showing how the flood story is impossible, yes, science has done this. Through geology, through genetics, through hydrology, etc. We know that the hilarious claims of flood supporting creationists are false (I do always love how they can’t even agree among themselves, so much for anything being “obvious” about the flood). We know that there was not some ice asteroid that crashed into the earth, that there are no vast caverns filled with water to gush up nor was there any moisture cloud that rained down. All are impossible with regular old physical laws. You need magic for any of them to work.
Your willful ignorance in this is amusing but pretending and praying real hard won’t make facts go away. We see no evidence of the flood claimed in the bible. We see no huge layer of flood deposit which we should if this actually happened. What happened, did God magically make it go away?
I do enjoy how you’ve did a complete retreat though, when now, when you can’t show any evidence, you retreat to “I belief because I want to.” that it’s only a matter of the “heart” not “evidence”. Yep, that’s how it always ends, the theist finally getting cornered and showing that all of his claims are garbage.
Um…I just gave you 5 clear, numbered responses, and you didn’t address any of them. And now you demand that I respond to your new questions that you pulled from a third party discussion? I don’t think so. First address my answers to your accusations (I suggest rereading/focusing on #5 since you claimed I gave no evidence.) When we have resolved those, I will look forward to addressing your new demands. Since you’re a geologist, please keep it simple so I can understand it.
As for this: “I do enjoy how you’ve did a complete retreat though, when now, when you can’t show any evidence, you retreat to “I belief because I want to.” that it’s only a matter of the “heart” not “evidence”. Yep, that’s how it always ends, the theist finally getting cornered and showing that all of his claims are garbage.”
Hmm. This makes we wonder if English isn’t your primary language, because you so badly garble what I said, and you don’t seem to understand what quotation marks are for. There’s so much wrong and intellectually dishonest in your statement that I hardly know where to begin, so I will clarify: You flatter yourself if you read my last statement as a retreat. 1) I DID give evidence, and 2) I did NOT say “…it’s only a matter of the ‘heart’ not ‘evidence,’” nor do I believe that is the case. Here’s my clarification: I have dogmatic beliefs. I fully admit this. You have equally (if not more so) dogmatic beliefs. You don’t see even see this. (Though I’d be happy to point them out to you.) You are blinded to this to such an extent that you will say ridiculous things like, there is “not one bit of evidence” to support a global flood. OF COURSE we all interpret data according to what we want to believe – data must be interpreted! For me to acknowledge this is simply to recognize what is true for me and for you. For you to acknowledge this would be a first step toward becoming a civil, intellectually responsible human being. So, even if you continue to ignore everything else I’ve said, answer this – Do you admit to holding to any dogmatic beliefs?
(That last sentence was a clear question. Please answer it.)
To Clubschadenfreude: (‘Sorry – couldn’t get a reply button on your post, so I had to piggyback on Robert’s. Robert, your answer is below)
Gosh. You sound kind of pissed. I’m happy I could bring some hilarity to your day!
Your post is puzzling for several reasons:
1) You say “There are no indications that we came from 8 people after a flood that left no evidence: read the article here to find out that your claims about how “freaking remarkable” the research is a lie:” Then you cite a source that doesn’t address the (evolutionary) research I cited. It’s pretty simple. The Torah account requires that there be one Y chromosome and three main mitochondrial lineages worldwide. There are. Or else show me otherwise.
2) You say my claim is false that the worldwide flood myths contain common characteristics, then as proof you cite one such myth that contains two similarities to the Torah story. Your Pygmy myth mentions a) “a great flood that spread all over the earth” (ie – not a neighborhood flood), and b) implies that the whole earth was populated from the few survivors that came from the flood. My point was that these stories are derivative, not identical.
3) You say your biggest question to me is “When did the flood occur?” Why would this be your biggest question? I don’t get it. Isn’t the greater issue IF it occurred?
4) You call my statement asserting overwhelming geological evidence for a violent catastrophic flood an “outright lie.” (3x you accuse me of lying!) And then you lie about what I said. Unless you can point out where I made a “strawman argument based on superseded information.”
5) Finally, you falsely state, “There is not one bit of evidence supporting a massive global flood. I’m a geologist and I know. If there was this magical flood with the violent spurting…we would have one huge layer of sediment, sorted within the layer from coarse on the bottom to fine on the top. ” If you’re a geologist up on current science, then you should know that we have witnessed violent flooding depositing so-called “millions of years of sedimentary layers” in a matter of hours (not one huge layer.) You should know that there are vast areas of rapidly deposited strata spanning continents, and even between continents, with no evidence of evolution between the layers. There are marine, land creatures, and insects that did not live together, but all buried together, and buried rapidly. (In Germany they recently found fossilized turtles buried in the act of mating. Freaking remarkable.) We have dinos buried in chalk beds. (If you’re a geologist then you know what chalk is composed of.) Hopefully we can agree that rocks are hard and do not bend, yet we often see so-named “millions of years of sedimentary rock” bent at hairpin angles with no fracturing – obviously folded when the layers were all still wet. You may decide that these facts (and there are many more) do not conclusively prove a worldwide flood, but they are certainly consistent with one. For you to say there is “not one bit of evidence” is a dogmatic faith statement. The truth is that we’re all looking at the same evidence, and you interpret it according to your preferred dogma, and I interpret it according to mine. Your penchant for hyperbole and overstatement merely shows your refusal to allow other reasonable possibilities because it would mess with your preferred identity as an atheist.
@ art & life notes
As you are a proponent of the global flood scenario I am keen to understand why there is a complete lack of evidence of an animal dispersal pattern from where the Ark (not me) was supposed to have come to rest?
Can you please explain this anomaly?
Can you also explain how carnivores survived on the Ark ?
Can you also explain the fundamentalist belief that dinosaurs like T-Rex which were also on the Ark, apparently, were initially vegetarian until after the fall?
Can you also explain the problem of resolving the cichlid issue? (this is a fish, in case you weren’t sure)
How did Noah cope with the mayfly problem -them only living for a day?
Is it true that a cubit is, in fact, not a unit of measurement but rather a method for chopping vegetables?
And finally, who’s job was it to shovel all the shit or do you think this was a chore all family members shared?
I shall treasure your answers.
I think while he is at it answering your questions, I have a few of my own.
1. how did they deal with woodpeckers?
2. There was only one window, how did they handle the matter of ventilation
3. The window wasn’t opened till 100+ days elapsed after the deluge, where did they get light?
4. Did Noah and family eat food raw and how did they manage to have all the food for all the animals in the boat?
And a bonus question
Without exposure to sunlight for more than 3 months, how did plants survive? And where did the herbivores get their food immediately after disembarking?
To Arkenaten & Makagutu (Golly! You atheists have such cool names! That sounds like a world music drumming group. Or a law firm specializing in video game character copyright infringement!)
So excited you are interested in the Noah’s Ark story. What about penguins? Don’t you guys want to know how Noah got penguins on the ark? Anyway, you can read as well as I can, so I’m going to send you to the same site that I sent Robert: http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-the-ark
You should find it entertaining. Be sure and read the comment section following. They will also take your burning questions.
To sum up on the Noah’s Ark thing: In order for this crazy story to remain on the table of real possibilities, it merely has to be shown that the story (as it is written – not according to your misreading) is within the realm of possibility. It has been shown to be so. Furthermore, if a global flood occurred as it is written in the Torah, it’s safe to say it would have been the greatest catastrophe in the written history of the planet, and would’ve altered the face of the planet forever. We see this. We have a planet covered in thousands of feet of sediment including vast fossil graveyards containing rapidly buried remains of millions of land and sea animals that died together. (Of course, I realize that evolutionists have made up their own dogmatic faith story to explain this, I just don’t think it’s as rational as the story in the Torah.) Also we would expect there to be some memory of such a catastrophe worldwide. We see this.
I think, even as atheists, you guys have to admit that the guys who pulled these made-up Bible stories out of their butts got really lucky. After all, they could’ve said that God judged the world by sending a plague, or a giant asteroid, or a big fire, or an army of zombies, or a divine vaporization of all evil creatures that left no trace whatsoever. But instead they made up a flood story that, thousands of years later, has more geological support than ever. And they accidentally made precise testable statements that happen to be compatible with modern genetics research. Three main mitochondrial lines. How lucky can you get!?
Here’s the blog post I mentioned earlier. I personally believe there are just to many absurdities in the story to take it seriously, regardless what genetic claims you make. http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark/