I am the Matt discussed in the original article. I found this to be quite interesting, as it was an approach to the theistic approach to epistemology that I hadn't heard, at least not put quite that way. The specious argument that I am making a claim to infallibility myself when I claim to believe in the Bible's infallibility is really quite stunning when I think about it. The only logical conclusion of such a claim, and the resultant claim that "all knowledge must be provisional" is that none of you know anything at all, in which case why take such an arrogant absolutist tone with those with whom you disagree?

Jesus said to Pontius Pilate, "...I came into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is of the truth hears my voice." Pilate's response is, "What is truth?" This exchange reveals perfectly the two different epistemological approaches here. You said all truth must be provisional. But that means that there is no truth, or at least no way for us to ever know that truth. And if so, then there is no right and wrong, no such thing as evil. There is only what works for me as an individual.

And yet you all know full well that that isn't true. You know full well that there are things that are evil, regardless of evolutionary processes or survival needs. You demonstrate that over and over in this thread. You act as absolutist as any Pharisee ever did, insulting the intelligence of those who disagree with you, even casting aspersions on our moral character, describing our perspective as "scary" and the like, in direct contradiction to your insistence that all knowledge must be provisional (which sounds like a pretty absolutist statement itself).

Science is not the only source of knowledge. It's not even the most important one. Within its proper role, science is wonderful, a gift from God to be used to understand His beautiful creation. But each of you have souls, whether you acknowledge that or not, and the image of God within you which teaches you right and wrong, is far more important than science. A good but scientifically illiterate man is a far better man than a scientifically knowledgeable but cruel and deceptive man.

I do not claim infallibility. My views on many subjects have changed. Your arguments on this point are circular. If there is truly a God, and He truly revealed Himself to mankind infallibly, then He can do so in a way which is compelling, and it is no claim of infallibility on my part to say that I have recognized His infallible revelation and submit to it. You say that I am wrong about many things. Why is it somehow different when I say that you are wrong about many things?

Pilate's statement, "What is truth?" was immediately followed by his order for the crucifixion of a man he himself knew to be innocent, because he felt compelled to do so for his own survival. Was he wrong to do it?

You have now. My name is Andrew

This is perhaps a small thing and beside the main point but demonstrates, once again, your dedication to accuracy. Without that accuracy it is very easy to think science and religion have equal arguments.

Having had a patient that had done a Ouija board, and had seen some pretty frightening things, and consequently became disturbed by them, I remain open minded. I can't release details for legal reasons.But through hypnotic regression the things I discovered were horrifying. If you are all atheist, then you can't really believe in evil spirits, so I challenge you to try it. Cause if religion of any sort is false then it follows that evil spirits can't exist. I'll sit on the fence on that one as I'm agnostic. But atheists have nothing to fear???

What are you talking about? A Ouija board simply spells out words. How does a person "see" anything?
You're absolutely right evil spirits don't exist. What do you want us to do, invoke some as a test?

I could give you the religious text I was given, but to make any meaning of them, I would have to explain how the mind works,and that would take pages. I will if you want me too.

This isn't Dutch in disguise, is it?

If scientists know that we evloved through evolution, then they should be able to replicate every step ( as this is suppose to be the proof for atheists) and recreate man?</blockquote?

Does an detective have to prove every step of a crime to implicate a criminal? Of course not. Even if a few steps are ambiguous (how did the criminal open the door? Did he use a baseball bat or a golf club?) as long as the major parts of the crime is figured out, a criminal can be convicted.

He didn't say "prove every step", he said "replicate every step", which is even more absurd. Does a prosecuting attorney have to murder someone in front of the jury to prove that a murder took place in the past? No. If the past murder left evidence that is still around, that evidence can be examined in the present.

In science, it is the observation and analysis of evidence that must be repeatable. It is not necessary that the events that originally produced the evidence be repeatable.

If scientists know that we evloved through evolution, then they should be able to replicate every step ( as this is suppose to be the proof for atheists) and recreate man?

Does an detective have to prove every step of a crime to implicate a criminal? Of course not. Even if a few steps are ambiguous (how did the criminal open the door? Did he use a baseball bat or a golf club?) as long as the major parts of the crime is figured out, a criminal can be convicted.

However, I don't need to create a website to be passionate about it. So why do you guy's need to?

Um, I haven't created a website. Ebonmuse made this site and he writes all the articles. I come here to read them because they are interesting and thought provoking. I don't see what's the problem with that. There are websites devoted to all manner of things, including religions, hobbies, etc. Are you really going to criticize us for doing the same thing that everyone else does? Are you claiming that we should be different in some manner, or that we should be apathetic by virtue of being atheist. Further, I pointed out why it matters (rights and stuff) that the perils of faith by confronted. Do you really disregard your rights so easily?

It is healthy to have debate from both sides, but all this site contains is opinions from one side, IE you lot.

And there are Xians and other theists that come here to debate. That you have not personally witnessed such means that you need to actually look at some other threads, because most have at least one theist. But, the fact that an atheist site that discusses atheist issues has a mostly atheist readership is hardly surprising.

For example Einsteins rewriting of Newtons theory of gravity by exclaiming that Newton did not realise the bending of space time.

This is an overly simplistic characterization of this and I don't see what it has to do with anything. Most here are willing to say that there might be a god. There is no evidence for said god, however, and the evidence that we do have leads us away from the idea of a god.

Reasoned arguments???
how can evolution have nothing to do with the big bang?

Yes, reasoned arguments that aren't based on arguing from ignorance.

You say that through opening your minds you realised religion was unfounded. So, it would be safe to assume that your minds are now closed to that.

No. As I've already said, I'm open to any evidence that a theist can present for his/her side. If they have evidence, I'm open to considering it and changing my mind. I've been asking and searching for a long time and no evidence has yet come to light. With no evidence for god, the rational position is to disbelieve.

Having had a patient that had done a Ouija board, and had seen some pretty frightening things, and consequently became disturbed by them, I remain open minded.

Ouija boards? Please.

I could give you the religious text I was given, but to make any meaning of them, I would have to explain how the mind works,and that would take pages.

Whatever. I asked for the passages and you now seem to be making excuses to not give them; I am tentatively concluding it's because your assertions are full of it. The Bible is not a science text, so I'm at a loss as to how you can find passages that are unable to be interpreted in any light except as some profound commentary on the latest science of the human psyche (forgive the hyperbole).

One of the passages that was pointed out to me in the bible was when Jesus was lowered into a house to cure a man of blindness. In particular the part when Jesus said be sure that no one knows of this. In other words, as the religious leaders were trying desperately to disprove Jesus's claims, a healed person may have had a relapse if they could be convinced it was just nonsense in my opinion, Jesus didn't heal anyone, it was their belief ( placebo effect) that healed them. There are two conclusions, either the bible is true, or a very clever person who knew about the power of the subconscious mind, inserted it into what we know as the bible today. Who knows? that's why I remain open minded.

I'm sorry, but are you actually asserting that the Bible is talking about the placebo effect and that if you tell people they are taking sugar pills that they might have a relapse? Please provide the chapter and verse. More likely, this is a case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses. You're doing what so many other people do in that you are taking your modern understanding of the world and imparting it to the Bible. So, what happens is that you conclude that either the Bible is true or the person had to know what you know, because you are putting your biases onto it when the truth is that neither holds. Still, prove me wrong and post the verses so we can all see it.

Jim, if what you mean by "open-minded" is "vulnerable to new evidence," I'd hope everybody here is open-minded. But you can't claim to be vulnerable to evidence if you can't see that the evidence for one opinion is clearly better than the evidence for the other when it clearly is. Fence-sitting is not being vulnerable to the evidence, it's being intentionally blind to the evidence.

It would not make any difference to the theory of evolution by natural selection if the Steady State Theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_cosmology ) of cosmology rather than the Big Bang had turned out to be true.

For that matter, it wouldn't matter if some deity created everything up to the point of, say, the first cell. Evolution would still be able to work from there. (Not that I believe that any such situation took place, I'm just saying...)

BTW how do I use the html tags to get the relevant phrase to become the link to the reference?

Like so:
<a href="http://www.example.com/">the text you want to be a link</a>

Or, to use your earlier line:

It would not make any difference to the theory of evolution by natural selection if the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_cosmology">Steady State Theory</a> of cosmology rather than the Big Bang had turned out to be true.

how can evolution have nothing to do with the big bang?

It would not make any difference to the theory of evolution by natural selection if the Steady State Theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_cosmology ) of cosmology rather than the Big Bang had turned out to be true.

BTW how do I use the html tags to get the relevant phrase to become the link to the reference?

It seems that it is just a site for atheists to RANT about religion.

If you think reasoned arguments are nothing but rants, then so be it.

I myself am agnostic, that is, I have a very open mind.

That's not necessarily so, and those of us who are atheist don't necessarily have closed minds. As mikespeir pointed out, many of us are former Xians, and it is through opening our minds that we realized that Xianity is man-made mythology.

Neither side can be proven or disproven, and neither side needs to prove or disprove to the other.

Wrong. Theists need to provide evidence for their positive assertions.

You guy's need to chill out, you're obsessed.

Being passionate about something is not the same as being obsessed.

I've been reading the comments about evolution, and whilst there is evidence,it does not explain the whole picture. Not even Stephen Hawkings can explain or offer proof that the big bang happened, he is still working on it, and has concluded so far that it arised from the point of singularity. But he can not effectively explain that,and has admitted such, so what chance have you guy's got?

Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, nor does it strive to. Are you complaining that evolution is not a theory of everything? No one has ever claimed that it is. And, yes, there are gaps in our understanding, just as there are gaps in our understanding of other areas...so what? Evolution still remains the best explanation we have and the only scientific explanation we have. No other "explanation" even comes close - and I find that religious "explanations" are not even true explanations in that they don't explain anything. Further, I don't see any of us trying to prove what happened during evolution; we are merely pointing people to the evidence. I don't see what's so wrong about clearing up other people's ignorance - like yours.

Whether or not they knew this before coming to see me, and tried to trick me, I'm not sure, but they made references out of the bible that made reference as why it worked.

And those references are?

I have consulted religious people I know, and have subtlety asked what the verses mean,and, unlike other verses which are open to interpretation, these are not.

I doubt that, considering the Bible is not a science text.

But the overall conclusion, is to remain openminded on both sides.

You'll find a lot more open-mindedness on this side of the fence. Don't believe me? Go check out some Xian blogs and see how open-minded they are.