This is a tricky question in some sense.
There are two points to address in that context, imo:
1. the theistic claims I explicitly reject as being false / wrong
2. the theistic claims concerning which I "technically" reserve judgement
First of all, in scientific context, we could technically be wrong about every model we came up with to describe / explain reality. There is nothing inherent in the universe which, for example, makes it impossible that the universe and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, was created just 5 seconds ago. The thing is that there is no reason to believe that.
Next, there is this idea in science that science is incapable of proving things (models in particular). "proving" as in: resulting in certainty. However, what science CAN do, is DISprove things (models in particular). Science can show how a model of reality is false, by taking testable predictions of that model, testing them and then observing that it doesn't work. This means the model is false or at least incomplete. If the test is succesfull however, then we did not just "prove" the model. Instead, we merely have shown that the data is consistent with it.
So, having said that and with that in mind, I can address the question concerning the two points.
1. Here, my answer is no. I can not be wrong about those things that have been shown to be false, since they have already been shown. Take the (literal) biblical flood story and the mega massive extinction wave that must have necessarily taken place at that time. This predicts MASSIVE genetic bottlenecks in ALL species. If these bottlenecks aren't there, then the model is false or at best incomplete (which in this context would be the same as "false" - since it doesn't work / can't account for the evidence as presented).
2. To be honest, since I'm technically reservering judgement until evidence comes up one way or the other, there is also no way I am "wrong" here, since there is nothing to be "wrong" about..... I don't believe that a God exists. I also don't believe that a God does not exist. "To believe" = to accept as true / accurate. I have the exact same data at my disposal for each claim ("god exists" and "god does not exist") and in both cases it is hilariously lacking to be able to make any kind of assessment of these claims in terms of truth value.
However, considering the mega outlandishness of these claims, the extra ordinary nature thereof, the unfalsifiability of it all, the complete lack of even only a hint one way or the other.... It seems to me that the world is a LOT more consistent with the model that says that there are no gods, then it is with the models that say there are....
So for all practical intents and purposes, I will live my life as if no such gods exists.
Could I be "wrong" to not believe the claims of theism?
Sure. I could also be wrong about the Great JuJu at the bottom of the sea, about bigfoot, about alien abduction, about whalhalla, about scientology,..... I could be wrong about ANY unfalsifiable, undemonstrated, unevidenced and baseless claim.
I could even be wrong about sensible non-supernatural models of reality that HAVE supportive evidence and which have NO contradicting evidence at present.... so obviously I could be wrong about unfalsifiable religious models as well.
However, it doesn't look like I am. There certainly is no data at all to even only suggest such.
