There once was thought to be a substance called the ether or aether. This was considered necessary to transmit things like gravity and electromagnetic waves. As special relativity came along this mythic substance was found to be redundant. Evidence no longer supported its existence and it was dropped from the scientific mainstream.
It is difficult to prove a negative but not impossible. All empirical proofs of gods existence fall down. All religious dogma is racial, geographic and faith based. Just as the ether no longer exists there is no proof or need for god. The universe can work without it.
I use the ether as not just a non-substance but to say yes science sometimes gets it wrong. Even great guys like Newton. Wegener did suffer ridicule and prejudice but he was not burnt at the steak, no fatwas were issued. Eventually science wised up, ok it took while but it did and no holy wars were needed.

More word salad.

My atheism is based on lack of evidence. I don't take science as gospel, but I do use the scientific method as the best way I know to verify stuff around me.

There's loads of stuff out there I don't know and don't care that I don't know as it has no relevance to my day to day life. What I do know is that the claims made by theists have not met their burden of proof.

I understand the rationalisations being used here, and that is fair enough. Personally, I will continue to hold the following veiw

'I don't say that god definately doesn't exist, just that any evidence/argument I have been presented with does not stand up to scrutiny'

Not only do I say that, but also the more I am exposed to discusion on the existence of god (by either a believer or a non-believer), and along with what I have learned about the way our universe works, I am even more convinced that gods existence becomes less and less likely all the time.

You can say that I am not an athiest, and that I am agnostic instead. Fair enough, but I am equally agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster.

MY atheist views are based on a LACK of evidence in theist claims.

I think it's more like what the author said: it's based on each person's interpretation.