If I claimed that X was true and you claimed that we could it is impossible to know whether or not X was true, and then turned around and said that I was wrong about X, you would in fact be contradicting yourself.

If you said that I was wrong in being a 100% certain that X was true (which I don't claim) then you would be more consistent. But by your own belief that X is not know to be true or false you cannot know whether or not I am correct in believing that X is true.

Idk. If i believe God is unknowable, any human that claims to know him is wrong. It doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

I person A thinks of a number between 1 and 10 and asks person B and C to guess and person B says the number is 3 and person C says that person be is wrong, who is closer to the truth? Is person B wrong?

I dont think you can pick a number because they are unknowable.

So is person B wrong? Is the number not 3?

Math hurts my brain i really dont know what you are getting at. I tried to explain myself and if you think im inconsistent thats alright.

The claim you're making has verifiable content. You are claiming a God with revelatory properties. Such a God's existence necessarily implies broad revelation. And we can examine that. Just as we can examine the claim of a God who, in the year 1618, turned to world into a giant swamp to suit his frog minions.

If person A has a number between 1 and 10 and person B says "37," then person C is justified in calling person B wrong.

Very true, but then the one claiming that person B is wrong would just need to show that person A said that it was between 1 and 10. Now I ask you to show me "person A said between 1 to 10" in regards to God.

Well, we usually leave the idiot bit out.

There is nothing spectacular about the statement "there is no way to know about the existence of souls, gods or other popular phenomena popularized by revealed religion" however. I wouldn't even say that it is particularly controversial.

Well, now you're asking specifics, and any one of them could take up a thread. My main issue with the logic of the Christian God is the problem of evil (and my responses to theodicy that first, it suggests that something must be greater than God or that God's nature must include even, second that free will is a nonsensical concept anyhow).

So I have noticed. And I feel this is one of the few legitimate reasons one could reject the God revealed in the bible (without proper explanations anyway).

I don't see how self determinism is contradictory. Maybe tough to conceptualize or paradoxical, but not contradictory or nonsensical. I have adjusted the way that I look at the problem of evil, mostly because of you, and also what could be considered part of the problem of evil.

Okay, I understand what you mean. But ignoring what a person says (s)he believes or does not believe, and then changing that belief, or lack thereof, by ascribing a different belief to that person when (s)he has not expressed any such view is still ignorant. Being willfully ignorant of a definition is still being ignorant of that definition. Example:

Atheism is not a worldview. Either Jib thinks atheism makes assertions which it does not, or he knows it does not but is claiming it does anyway. Either way, it is a statement from ignorance.

The argument that most atheists will make is that you are wrong to believe because there is no sufficient evidence that a god does exist (aside from a personal revelation, but that has all sorts of problematic implications and possibilities with it).

In the absence of any evidence, it is wrong for B to assume that the number is 3. A belief is not a guess. A belief is the assumption that something is true. In this case, the theist believes it is 3. (S)he actually thinks that it is 3 and not something else. This is different from guessing weather or not it is 3. The atheist does not believe that the number is 3. That is, (s)he does not claim that it is true that it is 3. But this is not the same as believing that it is not three. The atheist would be justified in thinking that the theist was wrong for asserting that it is 3, because the theist has no evidence that it is. The atheist is not asserting that it is 3, but is also not asserting that it is not 3. Just that it is wrong to assume it is 3 and not another number.