Isn't this where most atheists apply Occam's Razor?

Acknowledging possibilities is one thing, but to the extent any given human being can acknowledge an actuality -- we rely on evidence.

I tend to use the "box argument" here (for lack of a better name). If you have a box and you don't know what's in it. The possibilities could be and endless array of things that would ultimately fit inside a box of whatever dimensions. Unless you're physically able to look inside the box then you shouldn't bother assuming anything about what is contained inside of it. It should simply remain a box with unknown contents. Other people can tell you what's inside the box and explain that to you, but you're never going to be certain of what you take on hearsay. Just like if a scientist one day says "I've proved the many worlds theory!" and you wonder "Well... is this guy for real or is he a nut?".

We will always go through life having to assume some things we can't empirically observe are true and we have to believe that doing this will provide us some well-founded knowledge. This kind of reasoning is supported by evidence in the form of a consensus of empirical observations and explanations.

When it comes to the possibility of something and the consensus is a completely disingenuous attempt to marry the concept of faith with that of certainty on the notion of a deity, it is clear that what we're dealing with is not only lacking sufficient evidence, but it is also typically based on ill-founded logic and reason to begin with.