[Max Cow Disease]

"Gnostic atheism" is a flawed position, and leaves one incredibly susceptible to defeat in an argument against religion. In adopting the stance, you're essentially surrendering any advantageous high ground you may have had, and are sinking to the level of the theist/deist by taking things on faith alone (less faith, as it may seem, but faith nonetheless).

I don't presume, given all that we know, that there's a "God" out there of any conventional definition, and certainly not an intervening one. However, I can't begin to assert this as an absolute truth, and I can't rule out the possibility of being compelled otherwise by the right amount of evidence. Most of the prolific atheists of our time seem to see it the same way. That's where the stark divide is between the two sides: in my case, it's conceivable that you could change my mind were the evidence to surface. In a believer's case, what will change his mind? Nothing, otherwise it wouldn't be "faith", and therein lies the circularity and immunity of the religious argument.