I think that a distinction can be made between confidence and arrogance. And I want to reiterate that my accusations of arrogance are not directed at you or anyone else specifically. Everything below is meant as general commentary.

You can be confident in your religion while also accepting your own fallibility and the limitations of human understanding and intelligence. You can be confident in your faith while also being willing to listen to and consider other points of view without immediate defensiveness or condemnation. You can be confident in your beliefs without needing to prove its superiority over someone else's beliefs.

What I call arrogance is the assertion that 'your' beliefs, interpretations about God, and understanding of God is infallible and that those that disagree must be misguided. What I call arrogance is the judgement of other views or beliefs as evil or wicked or sinister. Arrogance is the practice of dismissing anyone else's personal spiritual experience while asserting that your personal spiritual experience must be correct. Arrogance is 'your religion and your beliefs are wrong, because mine are right because I can't be wrong'. Arrogance assumes authority over objective truth without evidence or humility.

I am very confident in my non-belief. I don't assert that my views are absolute or infallible. In fact, I assume (because I'm not God), that a great many things that I believe are, in fact, wrong. I don't assume my secular values are more objectively 'true' or superior to yours. And I do not view your sincere and honest investigation into reality and your differing conclusions are the result of evilness or wickedness. I feel very confident that Christianity is not true - but that doesn't mean I need to put it down, assert philosophical dominance, or convince you of your misguidance and demonic influences.

Confidence in your beliefs is fine; claiming those beliefs represent objective truth for everyone else, however, can sometimes cross into presumption.

And for the record, I'm certainly open to the argument that some of the things I say can be interpreted as arrogant. I'm open to being corrected when I make that mistake.

----

You've stated your convictions as stemming from a relationship with a Creator rather than an ideology. I don't know if that is a distinction without a difference in this discussion. Every religion (or relationship with the Creator), yours included, involves a human interpretation of what that Creator wants. Those interpretations differ wildly between faiths, and every believer thinks theirs is the correct one. That's exactly the "absolute certainty" being criticized: the inability to admit that maybe your understanding could be mistaken. Confidence and humility of our own fallibility because of our limitations need not be opposites.

I accept that, for most believers, the desire to bring me to 'their side of the coin' comes from a sincere and very well intentioned place. I take no offense or have no ill will toward anyone who has attempted to bring me back to Christianity. Using King's analogy of my house on fire - If you truly think my house is fire and then I truly appreciate your concern. If you are to insist my house is on fire and fail to respect my investigation and conclusions stating my house is NOT on fire, then I think you've stopped respecting me. This is the point, in my opinion, where proselytizing goes wrong and crosses respect to disrespect - from compassion to condescension - from 'I want to share this idea' to 'you better believe me'.

Even at its best implementation, proselytizing maybe requires a hint of arrogance. I mean, what if you are convincing me, an atheist, to join a religion in a reality where the actual God despises and punishes people for the following the false idols of Christianity? You could be leading me to my doom. The fact that I don't think most Christians even consider that a possibility is what I think is arrogant.

FIDO95 said:

---

. . . . and here is where you can label me "arrogant", Christianity is the right path back to our Creator. There is simply too much smoke to deny there is fire. From the historical records of non-Christians in the first century all the may to the modern day. From the miracles of the Saints from St Longinus (see below) all the way to St Carlo Acutis several months ago, there is simply too much evidence to deny a metaphysical force acting on our world.

---

Had you been born somewhere like Afghanistan, to devout Muslim parents, in a vritually entirely Muslim culture, with a Muslim upbringing - how likely do you think it is that you would be here telling me that Islam is the right path to the Creator with very similar, but slightly different reasoning?

It seems to me as though family and cultural influences are the primary driver in determining what people grow up to believe. I assume you agree with that statement - at least partially. Is there any challenge presented by this observation and your confidence that Christianity is the correct path?

I think you have to divide your question into two different responses.

Yes, the culture influences that surround you influence your worldview. You may come to a conclusion based on the best information that you have but, that doesn't mean that conclusion is correct. Someone born 1000yrs ago, likely had a worldview that the Earth was flat. If that was the best judgement they could make based on the known facts of the day, they made an intelligent conclusion even though they were wrong. They should be judged based on the era they lived and not on our current understanding of the Earth. However, if you are living today and have been presented geographical evidence and you continue to claim the Earth is flat, your not only wrong but you are a fool.

A devout Muslim, living in Muslim land, living their best life based on their knowledge has a better chance at Heaven then someone who has heard the Gospel and denounced Christ. This is the same mercy that we believe God would extend to the unborn, an individual who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel and be Baptized. You will be judged based on what God has revealed to you through His grace. If you haven't experienced those truths on Earth, you may get the chance at the Pearly Gates. If those truths' have been revealed to you and you deny them, you are wrong and likely damned; But that is not a judgement I make.

A devout Muslim living their best life holds no sway on whether or not Christianity is the best path back to our Creator. That doesn't mean they aren't good, decent, and kind people. They just haven't been exposed to God's grace here on Earth. I have been granted the Grace to live in a time, place, and era where I can access a vast collection of historical and scriptural data. I see no evidence to suggest that Christ was not who He said He was and/or evidence of the Muslim assertion that he was simply a prophet. I see no evidence to suggest that the Mohammad was a great prophet, only that he was a skilled warlord. The Old Testament prophecies of a coming Messiah do not match Mohammeds' Era (Book of Daniel statue prophecy) nor do they match the life that he lived (i.e Genesis 22, others).

FIDO95 said:

---

You may come to a conclusion based on the best information that you have but, that doesn't mean that conclusion

---

We are all products, in large part, of the circumstances and cultural forces that act on us. Even your conclusions in the final paragraph are positions I would put in that category - positions like saying Christianity is the best path, some people are exposed differently to God's grace, that historical evidences gives sufficient reason to believe Jesus was the son of God, and that Mohammad was not a prophet. You believe there is sufficient evidence to support those positions because that truth has been hammered into your brain for decades.

What I mean by the above is that these are conclusions that people arrive at as a result of being brought up in a Christian dominant culture. The best and brightest theologians, historians, and thinkers outside of Christian dominated areas never arrive at these conclusions. You might find an occasional exception, but those exceptions go both ways. Are the best and brightest theologians, historians, and thinkers of different cultures - also blessed with access to the vast information we have available at our fingertips today - are they just dumb?

My goal here is not necessarily to discount Christianity and certainly not to disprove it. My position is that most of what you posted above is purely result of where and when you were born. Had you been born elsewhere, it is almost a certainty you would believe something different. Yet, there appears to be an assumption that you are living in the 'one true timeline' and had you been born anywhere else or at any other time, that the beliefs resulting from those cultural influences would be wrong. It is too convenient to say that you were born into the one true religion and everyone else was born into a lie.

The flat Earth analogy is an interesting choice. Someone living many years ago might have made a reasonable conclusion about the Earth being flat. But, new evidences came along and people have allowed for their understanding of the planet to change. The clear implication with your analogy, I think, is that we ought to be open to the idea that our conclusions are merely based on culture and 'best available information' and that we should be open to being dead wrong about our conclusions. Yet, I worry that you only extend this metaphor to non-Christians and never inward.

Again, I want to state that it is in no way my intention to dismiss faith or to even say that it is unreasonable. It is to confirm your statement above in bold. And to point out what I see as a hypocrisy when [some] Christians suggest non-Christians need to be open minded toward accepting the truth of Chris while they themselves have no intention of being open minded about accepting a proclaimed truth by anyone else.

There is an attitude that all non-Christians need to be open minded and humble to the possibility of being wrong so that they can find the true path to God. . . . . but Christians need not concern themselves with that type of humility. . . .

ETA - I'm picking on Christianity here because of my audience. But, I think it applies more broadly to religion. It is simply an evolutionary tactic that religions have developed over thousands of years.