Most all the 50,000 denominations agree on the essentials of following Jesus, and admit each other to be true followers. Most all the disagreements are about nonessentials (and politics), not about truth. The occasional exceptions are usually easily distinguished because of several marks of disunity with the core at the same time: that is, a so-called "denomination", that really does reject all others, that refuses other truth teachers than its selected leader, and that usually doesn't go Bible only, is easily recognized as a cult instead of as a denomination.

I just linked you demonstrated ways to verify knowledge of truth about these things. Most all denominations agree broadly with such elements in verifying such knowledge. Nobody professes absolute belief as if we are capable of doing anything absolutely; people profess that absolute truth exists and we can approximate it and apprehend it better over time. Logically, if you believe there is no absolute truth, there's no absolute standard by which your relative belief can be tested or held right or wrong; no belief would be better than any other. Rather, most atheists are just practical agnostics, they do have some things they believe to be more in harmony with some external standard than other things.

You did fall into a trap by changing my definition from "unexplained" to "supernatural". When you investigate what people mean by "supernatural" they always go back to "unexplained". Now let's make that a real test case. There are over a dozen scientific (usually atheistic) theories of the origin of the universe. Every one of them necessarily appeals to the unexplained somewhere or other. Further, most of them contradict each other in their technical descriptions. Should I reject all the atheistic theories as not pursuing truth because they contradict, and should I reject them as fairy tales because they don't explain everything and thus contain events that defy "natural" law ("supernatural" because unexplained by us)? No, that's no reason. Rather, the existence of competition indicates truth exists and people are seeking it. The existence of broad agreement in simpler facts of life indicates that agreement can be achieved in the harder facts too.

Do you wish to make good on your pursuit of truth by treating me as a person who can be persuaded to greater truth than I already have? If there's no god, I'd want to know that, wouldn't I? Is it possible that by finding areas we agree on there might be a basis for us to trust each other to dialogue about disagreements? There would be no point in it if we're just here to sound good to ourselves and to reassure ourselves in what we already believe; rather, exposure to alternate viewpoints is helpful in science in establishing which viewpoint is most in agreement with external reality (absolute truth). c/Atheist relies on the scientific method, but are you prepared to recognize how to use that method, and its natural limits?