Well, scientific claims would be a good place to start where atheists making claims, though some scientists are believers. Evolution is a popular claim of atheists. Germ theory is another. Meteorology debunks superstitious claims.
In my experience, medical people with a secular stance have identified addiction as a chronological, neurological disorder where the “believers” say it is a spiritual condition due to character defects and shortcomings.
Atheists are “right” when they make claims based if they have evidence, and if there is a lack of evidence, they reject the claim. My declaring them “right” is my judgment. I will admit a technicality that scientist don’t claim things to be true, rather they only accept what cannot rejected.
I wrote “solar system” but I agree with you about the universe, and if you want to be technical, anywhere can be the center of anything with simply a designation. So, yes, the Earth can not only be the center of the universe, but it can be the center of any “system” if you choose. That’s not the point, but I appreciate your high level knowledge and understanding.
The point is people went with the dogma and/or consensus and did not refer to proof, and in fact in some cases, such as Giordano Bruno, when people demanded proof they were executed.
So, I’m back to my theory that the root of the perceived arrogance is due of a difference in standards for what is true.
-
The believer thinks the atheist is arrogant because he does not believe in accordance with the consensus. The believer does not require knowledge.
-
The atheist thinks the believer is arrogant because he claims knowledge without evidence. The atheist does not require consensus.
So the ideas are parallel with consensus and evidence being the variables.