The arrogance and ignorance of not believing in God is a human mind basing a decision upon unknowns, just the same as a human mind basing an opposite decision upon unknowns. We do not know the truth of the matter, there is no way for anyone to know the truth about it one way or the other. The decision to believe yes or no is based in ignorance. The thought that such a decision is correct despite the lack of proof is arrogance. What I mean is an attitude of I am right even though I cannot prove it is an arrogant attitude.

Ok, I get the gist of your thoughts, though that doesn't exactly place me in agreement, nor is it required. As thinking humans that's one thing that separates us from the rest of the beasts.

Though belief in the improvable existence of a god requires faith, I'd hardly call that a decision based in ignorance, nor would I characterize such a belief as arrogance.

To believe as many atheists do that agreement with an improvable gods existence lacks proof and therefore, logical agreement with the idea on such grounds, seems at least more plausible as we are not claiming the presence of something that can't be proven, simply disbelief and therefore rejection of that which can not be proven.

To myself, and as always the only one I speak for, simple rejection of an improvable (and over(t)ly improbable) existence of a god is based upon lack of proof thereof coupled with the rejection of the required faith to believe in anything lacking verifiable proof of existence. If that seems to you as arrogant, or ignorant, I'd have to say we have differing points of view as to what would constitute such things.

As one who fails to have faith in an improvable ideology I'm not required to disprove the existense of anything that itself is improvable, as many theists/believers claim I must, to prove my own atheism as valid. Believers are the ones with such a burden, not we who reject such belief/faith in the improvable.

Where it leaves me in all this is a difficult question to answer, considering that I do not truly know. It isn't a yes or no question/answer to me. It is paradoxical. There is no definite answer. I have a mixture of thoughts concerning that and frankly can't decide. More importantly I don't think I can, should or should have to be forced to decide. It is not my pace to do so. Who am I to think that I could possibly do so?

This equates as one of the most namby-pamby statements I've ever read on this topic, and I can assure you, there have been quite a goody number committed to memory.

To say you have/hold either a belief or reject such a belief is a statement of position, based upon whatever premise one chooses to do so upon. Similarly, to state one holds a position of ambiguity is just the same as to saying one lacks the ability to choose one or the other, and in the same hand, the strength to state with conviction that they hold an opinion at all. The definition of agnostic applies to all such fence sitters, so I query is that then your position?

Sure, I could decide for myself but it would still be an arrogant attitude based on ignorance.

It seems as if you've boxed yourself into quite an illogical/paradoxical corner there dude as you claim you can't make a call, nor that even if you did so, any logical choice even could be made ..... interesting indeed, even if I choose to heartily disagree