If I concede that it’s possible there is a God, then that God would be able to convince me of his existence.

Yes, but just because God would be able to convince you, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he/she/it WOULD convince you. If God ‘convinced’ everyone, then the whole idea of ‘faith’ wouldn’t be relevant (and religious folk claim that faith is one of the most relevant things)

It’s simple. As long as you define clearly what it is to “know” something.

But that’s precisely one of the problematic issues. Believers obviously have a different definition or criteria for ‘knowing’ something than non-believers people do (or their bar for evidence is lower than it is for the rest of us) ~ that’s one issue that causes some of the ‘disconnect’ between the two groups.

I’ll ask the question more simply and directly: for those of you out there who are atheists but think it might be possible to ‘know’ that God does exist (to the same degree that we know the earth travels around the sun and isn’t flat) how or through what ‘method’ do you think it’s possible?

For example, do atheists who believe it might be possible to ‘know’ that God does exist think that God might really be ‘talking’ to/communicating with certain people, just not them?

What ‘method’ or way of ‘knowing’ would be accepted by an atheist if that method was only accessible to SOME people?

(crickets)

The agnostic says knowing is impossible. The atheist doesn’t necessarily agree. Knowing might indeed be possible, but he doesn’t find evidence convincing enough to give him that knowledge.

I’m really curious to hear any atheists who think ‘knowing might be possible’ explain how it might be possible. The idea that sometime in the future we might have the techology/knowledge/understanding to ‘know’ strikes me as being a reasonable position (given that so many things that were ‘beyond’ us no longer are)….but how might someone think it’s possible to ‘know’ now?

To concede that right now it might be possible to ‘know’ is to concede that all the theists might be right. And if you* have to do that, are you* truly an atheist?

(* = not you personally mikespeir, just in case that wasn’t clear:)

Anyway….my main point is that if you arrive at the intellectual conclusion of ‘we can’t know’, then not ‘crossing the final stream’ has absolutely nothing to do with fear.

I tend to be one of those atheists who say that if you’re agnostic–you don’t have an active faith in any gods–you’re a-theist. However, you do make a point that exposes there really is a subtle distinction. The agnostic says knowing is impossible. The atheist doesn’t necessarily agree. Knowing might indeed be possible, but he doesn’t find evidence convincing enough to give him that knowledge. (Or, likelier, the knowledge he does have militates against the notion of deity.)

Anyway….my main point is that if you arrive at the intellectual conclusion of ‘we can’t know’, then not ‘crossing the final stream’ has absolutely nothing to do with fear.

That’s all

the argument for agnosticism is so bloody weak compared to the journey needed to get yourself out of religion in the first place failing to go from agnostic to atheist is like circling the globe on foot and being unable to cross the final stream because it’s too scary.

I’ll have to chime in to disagree here You talk as though agnostics just don’t have the intestinal fortitude to ‘make a decision’ ~ as though atheism is ‘the’ inevitable destination point. What do you think is ‘weak’ about coming to the conclusion of ‘I don’t know’ or, more specifically, ‘we can’t know’?

If one truly comes to that conclusion, then the ‘final stream’ you talk about doesn’t really exist.

Hey, wait, I’m an atheist from Birmingham! And not the one in Alabama!

Dude, if you converted, do you get to go to that café and move your grain?

“knock, knock, knock… hey, dude. Today I’m totally sold on Kabballah! Tomorrow I’m taking up Yoga though, so I might see you again!”