Not at all! I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression! I am enjoying this little discussion and feel free to comment on any and all of my work here.
My labeling of your approach as a "card' is simply because of the frequency I see it used, and slight frustration at having debunked it a dozen times over, but I suppose I'll word it again.
Knowledge does not require faith. Claims of absolute knowledge are indeed taken on faith, but simple knowledge of facts is based on simply testability and demonstrability. "Can I show/test/demonstrate this to be true?" If so, then it is accepted as knowledge, if not then it is not accepted until such a time as it can be.
---Dogmatic: adj. inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true
I have never known an atheist to claim to have absolute knowledge on anything, could you elaborate on your meaning here please? But on to your next claim:
“Does the law of non-contradiction, or the uniformity of nature only exist in our brains?”
Actually, yes they are. While it is true that non-contradiction is a property of reality, just as it is also true that nature is uniform, the laws explaining them are simply a consequence of superimposing our own perception and reasoning on what we observe. Would nature be uniform and objects non-contradictory without our perception? Yes they would, but logic would not.
And finally, you claim that “atheism doesn’t explain anything”. And you are absolutely correct. Atheism explains nothing, because atheism isn’t an explanation. It’s not designed to explain anything because it isn’t a religion. Atheism is the simple disbelief in theistic claims or in the existence of any version of a god or gods.
But you claim it’s also self contradictory? How so? Atheism makes no claims to contradict each other, so perhaps you could explain exactly what claims you think are contradictory.