In “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism”, Rowe defines the term friendly atheism as the idea that an atheist can believe “that some theists are rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists”.  He explains that friendly atheism becomes self-contradictory when each party knows both sides of the issue and still finds the other side to be rationally justified in their views.  This idea aligns with Feldman’s conclusion in “Reasonable Religious Disagreements” which states that “epistemic peers cannot reasonably conclude that both they and those with whom they disagree are reasonable in their beliefs”.  I agree with the conclusion drawn by these two authors however I recognize the potential limitation.  This limitation being the amount of information that each party can share.  Presenting information is not the same as actually going through an experience that might have led to your view on a particular issue.  Thus a party cannot be completely informed of the opposing party’s evidence as Feldman describes as “a modest skeptical alternative”.