Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[bennyboy]

That's for cardiac surgery, but what about our preparedness to state/demonstrate objective facts about life and the universe ? I can safely assume - and nobody can refute my assumption - that the human mind must first survive ten thousand years of continous genome alterations and countless life-threating situations to begin ascertaning truths of any kind, wait 15 thousand more to consider our reasoning strong enough to start thinking about discovering objective facts. And even then, nothing indicates that our mind is reliable enough and we can never demonstrate it, it follows that nothing anyone can say has any objective value whatsoever.

Those are some pretty arbitrary numbers you're making up there, bud. But I'd agree that, philosophically speaking, we can never be sure if what we consider truth represents an objective truth-- given that by objective, you actually mean "absolute," which seems to be the case.

How do you know there are actually objective truths if you can't prove them ? And what's the point of this whole rhetorical discourse if you still can't come up with a sound argument proving your mind is reliable ? What about just acknowledging the fact that constructing any reasonable ground for objective truth outside religion is madness ? 
At least theists start from claim - regardless of its truth - : that there is a God. Therefore we - as creatures of God - are a product of a prefect being, this means that this being made us capable of following the right path towards him, which is equivalent to the reliablity of the human mind. 
This does not prove God exists, it only proves that it is possible to provide a coherent theory about objectivity if we warrant the religious premise.

Hang on, there. You will have a much more "coherent theory about objectivity" if you warrant the following: that there's a material world, and for the most part we perceive it accurately.

Knowing God to be true for sure would also require senses-- might as well remove that extra step.

You say that your mind is reliable enough for your purposes, which begs the obvious question : what are your purposes ? If your purpose is to be a dangerous predator on earth, your claim is plausible. But if we're talking about objective knowledge, then it can be easily dismissed as rubbish.

There's no intrinsic purpose except those we are born with. It's apparent enough that for most organisms, genetic fitness is the "purpose." (Although really that's not accurate-- it would be better to say "tendency" or "program")

If the only thing you know is that you're more evolved than a canary, and if a canary is more evolved than, say, Mycoplasma, what prevents a canary from claiming that his brain is reliable since ((something))'s brain is less reliable than his ? What prevents a canary from coming here and debating us on the matter too, maybe even coming up with a better pretext than yours for trusting his brain ? What kind of reasoning is that ? 

Fair argument.

Besides, why do you even put yourselves at the top of the universe ? If I'm much better at math than my baby sister, can I claim that some math equations I scribbled in the walls of my bedroom are reliable and can't be questioned, and that my IQ is higher than that of Terence Tao ? This is ignorance, Khemikal.

I believe you are trying to arrive at God, but all the things you are saying about humanity's limitations serve to undermine the God idea. You're saying we're limited and cannot know objective truth. We could not, therefore, have the capacity to comprehend God. If we cannot comprehend, but nevertheless insist on carrying and transmitting ideas about God, then we are actually carrying and transmitting ideas of not-God. Therefore, all religions, including Islam, are intrinsically false-- either God does not exist, or He is not what they are insisting (sometimes at gunpoint) He is.

Since any argument you might make about Allah is intrinsically flawed, you should stop talking about Allah. I mean-- you are knowingly distributing falsehoods about the Creator, and that cannot be a good thing.