Evidence for atheist claims

[Mister Agenda]

I understand what you have said, but I do not think it is wrong that I have said "atheistic cosmology", since every person has a cosmology, and an atheist has one of his own, right? When I said "atheistic worldview" I referred to a worldview where any divinity is out of the case. I do understand that atheism is not like the Orthodox Church where every believer professes the same beliefs and that atheists disagree with themselves. I should have said naturalistic or matherialistic claims.

Thanks for the courteous response, though I am unclear on why you felt I deserved courtesy when others equally polite didn't.

We don't have an atheist cosmology. Atheists don't agree on cosmology, especially the atheists that follow religions. Rational skeptics accept the findings of science provisionally, understanding that new evidence may require them to be revised; and are willing to accept that wanting answers doesn't mean we get them. When something isn't known, the most honest and valid thing you can say regarding your knowledge of it is 'I don't know'.

I don't rule out divinity, if the divine exists, there is always the chance that it will actually do something, and if it does, that can be studied.

Naturalistic claims would have been the best choice to use. Rational skeptics are usually methodological naturalists, not metaphysical naturalists. A supernatural plane is not ruled out beforehand, but unless there is a good reason to believe it exists and it's existence is relevant to how the subject under investigation is understood; it remains beyond the bounds of science and observation. Unless a claim can be backed up, it is just a claim.

But I see you're getting it, and I hope that you're going to turn out to be one of our better contributors once you get your forum 'sea legs'. You're always as good as your last post with me.