"If I can & must dismiss millions of reports of the divine, why can I trust a handful of reports of "science"?"

*boy* "Look - the emperor’s all naked!"

Or, TL;DR: Atheism isn't an attempt to "explain" anything. It's merely the rejection of the arguments presented against.

But to address some of your points individually… I don't speak for all atheists but, for me, sure, I want to have an explanation for all those existential-y things. I do. It's completely unsatisfying to think there might be nothing... after. It's actually a little scary sometimes. I'm even envious, in some ways.

That said, reality is not a democracy. That millions of 'reports' of the divine exist is not sufficient to convince me because, despite their testimony, I still have questions that appear unanswered. Thomas Aquinas and I have had words and we just don’t see eye to eye. Likewise, Pascal. But on to the points.

"Friend, if there's no God, then evolution is a joke - the odds against are so astronomical that it's basically impossible to calculate. You'd be more likely to win 50 lotteries on 50 tickets - far more likely."

This argument comes up a lot - same for the Big Bang - but these concepts only overlap in their extrapolations:

- Creation Stories are How-We-Became-We stories. Every culture has one. Or several. Sometimes they co-exist, sometimes they lead to Team Us vs. Team Them. But I digress...

+ The Garden of Eden et al assuages our concerns about having come into existence ex nihilo. It doesn't explain why 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct and why many that are present today have no obvious relationship to some that had existed previously. Plus, it Requires an Agent, Explicitly.

- Evolution isn't a How-We-Became-We story. It’s a How-We-Got-Here-From-A-Bunch-Of-Back-Theres(-and-maybe-even-some-clues-about-where-we-are-going) Story. It's just a pretty plausible, useful explanation for how all manner of flora and fauna came to be what they are now and help us fill in some blanks as to where they might have come from.

+ Evolution is helpful at understanding how small variations in environment and other factors lead to nature 'picking' the traits that most benefit that species for survival and, hopefully, to keep the family line going. It Requires No Agent.

Or, as stated in response by Laplace to Napolean upon submission for review his work on the movements of heavenly bodies, Mécanique céleste: Napoleon asked Laplace where God fit into his mathematical work, and Laplace famously replied "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis." Evolution has no need for this hypothesis. I have no need either. It's nothing personal but I'm not actually seeking an explanation for anything of that sort, but I hope we as a race keep seeking it. And to be clear, I don't think they're not even trying to address the same intellectual space, for the most part. Only at the edges where ideologies might be threatened.

To cut to the chase; YOU: "Long and short, you're twisting yourself in knots to avoid the obvious: God exists." ME: No twisting. I'm not trying that hard at all. It's actually much more difficult all the stuff you have to do to prop it all up all the time. I am not uninitiated in the ways of the faithful.

I simply stated, "I am an atheist and reject the gods of all books and scrolls and mythologies." and you responded with a 400-word response with multiple backhand swipes at: My Ability to Reason - "Sadly, atheists' arguments always descend into semantics and nonsense" [Sadly, you don't see the irony.]; My Ability to Discern the Meanings of Words - "If I were to apply your epistemological theories consistently" [I have nowhere suggested, let alone attempted to convince anyone, that I have any special knowledge. Rather, it's that lack of said knowledge, the actual acknowledgement that I might simply not be able to know some stuff, that guides my doubt. But you might want to Google 'Ontology.']; My Integrity - "(as every honest atheist admits)" [Do you know any actual, IRL atheists? Or just honest ones? You guys get together and chat it out on the regular?] ; and, I believe, My Maturity - "I'll play along." [*pats Pi on the head*]

You present a lot of stuff, words, circular arguments that, as presented, to my mind boil down to "Shhhh... The Grown-ups are talking!" then expect me to consider your claims seriously as I work my way through passages like this: "If the mind that perceives the divine is unreliable &, thus, if I can dismiss that evidence because the mind is unreliable, then I must infer that the mind is unreliable, which means I have no tool to interact w/ or assess any evidence at all."

Apologies that this was the first thought in my head: youtu.be/wwIFMCKlVK8

You can't save me. And if you want to convince me, it's going to take a little something more substantial and non-ethereal than this.

I'm willing to engage, if you're honestly curious. Or even if your aim is to proseletize. Just avoid the talking-down. Don't assume you have some knowledge that I don't solely based on your claim that you and all those other people think the same. For a long time everybody thought the world was flat. Everybody was sure. Everybody was wrong.