What can we know?

[Polycarp]

I've noticed that a lot of the posts that begin with or mutate towards religious questions, and a few others, seem to get hung up on the sources of knowledge. Sarcastic, exaggerated example:

ImaXtian: Well, I KNOW that what I posted is the truth, 'cause it says so in I Chronicles 3!!
[b]RationalDude7[/b/]: Yeah, but that doesn't prove nothing, because there is no God and all that is is a bunch of garbled myth.

Hello? Can we get a level playing field? What assumptions are you (each) making, and what would it take to get you to change them?

As I said in another post, Christianity (or any religion) and atheism are both matters of faith; agnosticism is the only rational path. Both the former make assumptions about the existence (or not) of God based on evidence (or its lack). Agnosticism simply says: "There is insufficient data to compute."

And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (Which may be the first time anyone has quoted Stephen Jay Gould in support of organized religion!)

Anyway, I'm suggesting we look at the concepts that make us take different sides on some of the issues that have been addressed, and see if we have any common ground, or can learn something about what can be known from each other.