I've listened to every show. Been an atheist but I Gotta say that today you guys kinda got out-debated. It was the second to last caller. His premise bascially was that Science admittedly hasn't figured out all the different forms of existence and life therefore how can we Atheist make a positive assertion that there is no God. I kinda thought he had Jen and the other male host (forget his name at this time) a little flustered. By the end of the phone call for the first time I felt that you guys didn't defeat his arguements and claims. Just thought I'd give a little love to the 1 theist that i've heard call in and hold his own. He was really good.

I'm guessing you mean July 3, 2011. That was episode 716, Jenn and Russell.

I haven't listened to that episode yet, but this sort of tactic is very common. It involves

1) a mis-representation of the atheist position, by asserting that atheists are claiming there is no god. We merely don't believe in gods due to the lack of convincing evidence FOR a god.

2) an argument from ignorance -- a logical fallacy that says if you don't know the answer to a question, then my answer must be correct. I'm willing to bet that the caller didn't offer evidence for his god.

That is what atheism is the position there is no god. Where do you guys get your information out of your ass?

Look at the front page of this web site. Or any other atheist web site.

If "theism" is belief in a god, then "a.theism" is the lack of belief.

I think the real problem here is that no "theist" has any evidence for their position so they'd prefer to try to redefine "atheist" as something that's easier for them to use as a smoke screen to hide their failings.

Yep I did mean that episode. I actually go back and listen to that episode from time to time. Most of the theist get destroyed so when one doesn't it's interesting. There was another one early on. I've got to find the epidsode. He was going on and on about the motor in nature...flagellum? He was decent as well.

Thanks Linda for your response.

The motor debate has been crushed before. Check the "Delaware" debates on intellegent design. I thought they had a good argument, but again, they (creationist) lost that one too!

Mike, "His premise bascially was that Science admittedly hasn't figured out all the different forms of existence and life therefore how can we Atheist make a positive assertion that there is no God."

Basically, scientists know that life can exist in a lot of forms of liquid not necessarily water. This is why they are now searching for liquid on planets not only liquid water. Although, it is true that liquid is only a key ingredient in living organisms that we know of so far scientists know there likely are other forms of life. That does not require or prove a creator or that anything is supernatural. Every atom that ever was or will be came into existence during the big bang. All of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and following the expansion of the singularity. Every atom then and now was actualized in the course of the big bang. Neither universe nor life in the universe requires a cause or a creator. At quantum physics level transitions do occur spontaneously without an apparent cause, like nuclear reactions. The Hubble Space Telescope will document how the universe evolved to gain insight into the most basic processes underlying the formation of everything around us. This study will allow us to chart for the first time the maturation process of galaxies.

Microbial life forms have been discovered on Earth that can survive and even thrive at extremes of high and low temperature and pressure, and in conditions of acidity, salinity, alkalinity, and concentrations of heavy metals that would have been regarded as lethal just a few years ago. These discoveries include the wide diversity of life near sea-floor hydrother­mal vent systems, where some organisms live essentially on chemical energy in the absence of sunlight. Similar environments may be present elsewhere in the Solar System.

Scientists do not find it amazing or surprising that life evolved on earth or possibly on other planets. It was the religious that rejected those claims. Organic matter constantly rains down on Earth from space in the form of interplanetary debris. The crater record of the Moon shows that Earth experienced a period of late bombardment 3.8 billion years ago, just a bit earlier than when the oldest life forms appear in the fossil record. Tens of thousands of tons of extraterrestrial matter fall to Earth annually, even now. And the notion that chemical evolution occurs in space seems certain. Analyses of comets, meteorites and interstellar gas during the past two decades have proven that organic chemistry is widespread in the Universe. Terrestrial gases interacted with one another, as well as with energy, thereby synthesizing bigger molecules. Nothing magical or (supernatural) caused this rise in complexity. The same solar energy that clearly sustains life now was also active in helping to create life billions of years ago.

Humans are a biological component of nature that evolved. Some atoms arranged to form a brain that produced consciousness, but that doesn't mean atoms are conscious, or that all arrangements of atoms produce consciousness. It's the particular arrangement that matters. Our intelligence and consciousness evolved through trial and error. There were many intermediate species that went extinct. Evolution does not require anything new or unusual in the universe. The atoms that make up the molecules that make up life did not exist in the beginning. They came into existence over time as our universe evolved.

None of the caller's assertions explain how anything happened. I wouldn't be criticizing science if I didn't have any of the answers (god-did-it) doesn't answer anything.

NASA's Kepler space telescope has spotted five planets about the size of Earth, orbiting stars in our galaxy. Because of these findings by NASA's Kepler space telescope it seem less likely that we are alone. Scientists do think that life exists on other planets. They are in the "Goldilocks zone" where the distance from the planet to their star is optimal for supporting life. Up until now we have only found one of these, Gliese 481C, and the planet's existence was in doubt. Finding five of these planets, rocky planets that are optimal in size and location to support life makes it almost impossible to deny the existence of life on other planets. As many as 1/4 of all the sun-like stars in the Milky Way may have Earth-like worlds. One of astronomy's goals is to find 'eta-Earth,' the fraction of sun-like stars that have an earth. The number could be one in eight. But it's not one in 100, which was previously estimated. There could be even more Earth-size planets at greater distances, including within the habitable zone (Goldilocks zone) located at a distance form the star where conditions are not too hot or too cold to allow the presence of liquid water.

There well may be intelligent life or other life forms out there but that is not proof of a creator or a Supernatural Being. The atheists and scientists are not the one's making claims without providing evidence. Where is the proof (or evidence) of gods or the supernatural. It's pretty easy to let science provide all the answers and then sit back and say god-did-it. That's typical. Nobody has to prove that something does not exist; there are numerous absurdities that nobody can prove don't exist. I'll bet I won't get any answers either.

In "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow it's explained that before the beginning of the Universe, there was nothing, no other universe, no god, no creator, and no flow of time. It's hard to comprehend because we think in terms of now and earlier and later or a beginning to everything, which is not always true. Physicist Stephen Hawking compares the beginning of the Universe to the South Pole. If you start at the South Pole you can go North just like you can go forward in time from the beginning of the Universe. But you can't go South (p 135 in The Grand Design). Starting at the South Pole, there is no South; this is just like at the start of the Universe when there is no earlier time.

The caller must think that other forms of life are found that would prove there is a god. Most scientists support the theory that there probably are other life forms in the universe, but that does not give credence to the existence of god or the supernatural. Scientists discovered and observed evolution-taking place. Scientists have observed replicating chemical chains forming from non-replicating chains. Scientists have found the answers that have unlocked many of the mysteries of the universe and life in the universe. God-did-it has answered nothing. Other forms of life could have evolved but nothing was created. Does god have a cause? If god has a cause what is it? The caller does not have to give any proof for the god theory or anything else; but scientists do. The caller has no argument. When you start basing what is true on assumptions you wind up with religion.

"You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into." Jonathan Swift

Linda you are great!

And yeah since their "uber-flawed" belief system has an apparently unfailable protection which shuts their brain off as soon as you bring up a point that they have no explanation for, there is no way to prove them wrong.. because to prove something, the other side would actually have to somehow analyse your input which is impossible since they shut off... "It is not up to me to question god's ways" is, for me, just a way of saying "I am too stupid/scared/brainwashed to think for myself".

Somewhere on the internet i saw a christian girl say that "since there is no oxygen in space, and the sun is burning, how can you say god doesn't exist!!" Well first she should get her facts straight before making a fool out of herself.. and not only take as much science as she needs to state some moronic point.. and just because she doesn't understand it doesn't prove her god did it.

We simply don't know all the forms of life, just like the caller said but by what perverted logic does that discredit the point of view of an atheist? So if we would know all forms of life we would be safe to say there is no god? Ok another example since its damn difficult to know all forms of life.. if not impossible.. Lets say "Science admittedly hasn't counted all the sand corns in the sand-box of my playground so how can you say there is no god?" And if we count them it proves there is no god? same twisted logic..

An atheist simply states i don't believe in god and i say your version of god is bullsh!t, a crappy old book made of contradicting and illogical selections of other books won't prove it, jibberish won't prove it, you saying that we can't be sure won't prove it. ALSO i don't need to disprove it in order to not believe it but instead you have to prove it in order to have a valid reason to change my opinion.

God alone could prove it but by giving proof of what theists say is true, he would simply give a real atheist another reason to say "Your god is an ass", (loved that caller btw.)

"God did it" and "god can make life anywhere" doesn't prove anything.. except that the one who says it believes something they have no proof for or even just a single logical explanation. And there is a good reason they are called believers.. believing is not knowing.

"God did it, because xyz" MIGHT prove it but so far, in my 30 years of existence i didn't hear a single argument that i would even need to think about for more than a quarter of a second before dismissing it. You could as well say "Santa did it as a present for christmas" or "My imaginary friend did it because he was drunk".

Anyhow...

"In September, 2007, during the European Space Agency's FOTON-M3 mission, tardigrades, also known as water-bears, were able to survive 10 days of exposure to open-space with only their natural protection."

Quote from wikipedia, saw it somewhere on discovery. I don't know if they died after the 10 days.. but it is actually irrelevant.

The same organism is said to have survived ice ages completely unprotected and i believe there are forms of life which could survive !pretty much! anything we can throw at them here on earth or on other planets, maybe even between the planets.

That does not prove that there is life elsewhere in the universe but because of the huge amount of galaxies and already found systems which could support life as we know it and the vast amount of unknown galaxies and systems, and especially because we do not know all forms of life or what they need to survive, it would be idiotic to claim or even just assume that we are so special and actually alone out there. And that we are pets to some saddistic form of existence which wanted us to be unable to distinguish good from evil and took gaining that knowledge as a reason to boot us out of his garden and almost eradicate us.

Linda, your post reminds of a dogmatic and closed minded theist.

I am honestly disgusted. You make countless claims to knowledge that not even our greatest scientists are privy to.

Namely consciousness and how life originated on earth.

Not to mention you contradict your self by accepting "The Grand Design" on one hand and questioning who created God on the other.

It's almost as if the "The Grand Design" is your bible. Isn't it this the exact type of closed mindedness that we atheists always gripe about?

Maybe you've got atheist confused with fundamentalist? Fundamentalists are phony grinning religious fanatics who claim they're gracious while doing sick and vicious things. Like lying to take control.

Dogma is belief without evidence. There were plenty of facts in Linda's post, with the evidence, and that's what you found disgusting - because you gave none. What was stated is science and we know it exists, without apologizing for it or adding an opinion. I was dismayed at all the "opinion" talk in the first post and in yours.

I have noticed many posts like that under Linda's disputes with creationists. Scientific facts can't shake anyone's "faith" in atheism because it's not dogma; it's the opposite. In fact, theist goals are quite the opposite of the advancement of science and the facts.

Everything that was stated concerning 'The Grand Design' was based on what we know through science about the origin of the universe - not the other way around. Stephen Hawking, the author of 'The Grand Design', is considered the world's foremost living theoretical physicist and is often compared to Einstein.

Was this Linda's SO-CALLED contradictory statement you were referring to? "Scientists discovered and observed evolution-taking place. Scientists have observed replicating chemical chains forming from non-replicating chains. Scientists have found the answers that have unlocked many of the mysteries of the universe and life in the universe. God-did-it has answered nothing. Other forms of life could have evolved but nothing was created. Does god have a cause?"

That means scientists theorize that the big bang was a spontaneous event (didn't need a cause) and the universe and life in the universe evolved through natural processes not through a supernatural creation one time event. If theist believe that everything had to have a cause why don't they think god needs a cause? There is no contradiction you're just too obtuse to get it!

The comment on consciousness: "Humans are a biological component of nature that evolved. Some atoms arranged to form a brain that produced consciousness, but that doesn't mean atoms are conscious, or that all arrangements of atoms produce consciousness. It's the particular arrangement that matters. Our intelligence and consciousness evolved through trial and error. There were many intermediate species that went extinct. Evolution does not require anything new or unusual in the universe. The atoms that make up the molecules that make up life did not exist in the beginning. They came into existence over time as our universe evolved."

Evolutionary biologists believe that consciousness evolved in exactly as described. Where is your scientific proof that it's WRONG! Look for that in apologetics - no real scientists would dispute that. If at some point there was "supernatural intervention" there is no scientific theory that inserts "supernatural intervention" in order for any theory to work. It is totally unnecessary and is only done in order to claim a creation theory is valid.

If the science can't be grasped it's because of the belief that everything was created instead of understanding that everything evolved through natural processes. Those people who don't like that don't have the ability to understand science - and they don't like it when someone else is doing that. Only those who don't like proof that god isn't necessary to explain anything would be bitching and moaning.

You're not kidding anyone. I hope you don't think that anyone with a brain has a problem reading what Linda actually posted instead of the misinterpretation you have written. That's why you didn't copy what was actually written and then try to dispute it. That's always been obvious. It's evident that you don't have a real rebuttal to what was posted to the creationist argument. You just simply think that calling a scientific explanation atheist dogma will do the trick. Come back when you have an actual rebuttal - and don't hesitate to change your name.

I don't know any atheist that considers scientific explanations with evidence "dogma" theists make those kinds of remarks. An opinion without facts is all any religion has to offer and that is dogma.

Ok i might not know the definition of " going south"....from the south pole. But , technically in reference to where south is from the north pole . Wouldn't traveling south from the south pole merely mean going straight up into space from the south pole itself ? Someone on the north pole would define the movement into space as I stated as " moving south" right ? ok i've been smoking too much ganja

Yes, cut down on the weed, you seem quite confused :) You can not go south from the south pole, deal with it, the Earth's south ends/starts at some point just like the beginning of time (in this one universe that we call our own) started at some point.. and most likely will end at some point as well. Asking what was before the begin of time is a paradox, there can't be anything before the begin of time, you have no ground to ask that question, at least not somebody who thinks that the time was non existent before uhm.. it began. . And i will gladly repeat it, the fact that we don't know something, or a LOT of things, is not a reason to take a gigantic leap into the imaginary world where some super boss who created everything is pulling the strings and telling you what to do, in order to have the next best explanation for the unknown. Furthermore, you won't ever get a real answer if you stop looking for answers by making up ONE illogical and as sorry as i am to say it, idiotic answer for ALL your questions, aka "GODDIDIT".

"I am honestly disgusted. You make countless claims to knowledge that not even our greatest scientists are privy to"

like what? Seems pretty logical to me