"Trusting one self with utmost infallibility"? That's not at all what atheists believe. I'm atheist and I absolutely am fallible. When I fail at something I have to take personal responsibility for that, make amends, and strive to be better. That seems like the exact opposite of idle convenience.
Then you could be wrong about your own atheism, correct?
Correct. I don't think one can prove there are no gods, I just lack belief that there are. It's no different than Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster — they might exist, but there's insufficient evidence for them, so I don't believe. Could you be wrong about your Christianity?
I suppose so, but I don’t think I am. From a logical approach I think there is ample evidence for God, and there’s also faith Pascals’s Wager, as well
So you as a theist admit God might not exist, and I as an atheist admit it might. We each have the humility to recognize we might be mistaken, but base our beliefs on what we consider the evidence shows. Why then did you claim that atheism is an idea of "utmost infallibility", hubris, etc.?
Because most atheists I encounter arrogantly claim to know objectively that their beliefs, or non-beliefs, are true. That’s anecdotal, of course. However, do I think the nature of atheism almost necessitates an “infallible” mindset otherwise it’s just agnosticism
Not really: atheism's about belief, but agnosticism's about knowledge, so they overlap. Gnostic atheists lack belief in gods and claim to *know* that they don't exist. An agnostic atheist (like me) also lacks belief in gods but doesn't think we can know it for sure: it's unprovable.
As such, it sounds like your beef is more narrowly just with gnostic atheists, which I think is understandable. Since their claim to know that their beliefs are objectively true is something you consider "arrogant", do you not say that your own beliefs are objectively true?
I think we already established this. I conceded the point that I could be wrong due to lack of apparent empirical evidence of God’s existence I believe God to be the objective truth, yes, but again, I don’t need to repeat what’s been said. There’s arrogance, then there’s discussing the way we are
Right: I do not say it's objectively true that God does not exist, but I lack belief that he does. Likewise, you do not say it's objectively true that God does exist (since you see such claims of objective truth as arrogant), but you believe that he does. In short, we just differ in belief, yes?
You’re twisting my words, I’m not sure if you’re doing it intentionally, but nonetheless. I never said that thinking your beliefs are objectively true is arrogant. I said that they “arrogantly” spout their beliefs as true. Do you see difference?
Anyone can be wrong about something, which is shown when they are presented with the evidence they are wrong. The hubris is thinking you're right without evidence.
So, in short, yes?