Czarcasm and other atheists:
I find the whole “is atheism a religion?” question (which has been beaten into equine hamburger already) to be one where some strong misunderstandings of terminology exist among the parties involved.
I present to you John Q. Strawman, who is a “sincere atheist.” He believes firmly that there is no god.
He is making a non-rational judgment on the basis of personal experience – establishing a belief structure, in other words. So he is making a faith-based judgment.
Vile Orb takes a somewhat different approach to the question. But he considers it as proven that there is no such thing as a god. This is a rational judgment, not a faith-based one.
Yourself, Czarcasm, Gaudere, David, and Spiritus Mundi have weighed the evidence presented by others in favor of there being a god – their god in particular, but all flavors of godhood that might have come within your purview. And you have found the evidence lacking for any acceptance, belief, or commitment.
That I believe you to be incorrect in your evaluation makes no mashed potatoes here. I must respect your ability to reason to your own satisfaction.
And, as I understand it, you feel no more bound to believe in the existence of a god on inadequate evidence than to believe in fairies dancing in your garden on the basis of the Conan Doyle researches.
If I were to present to you God in human form, able to satisfy all your demands and prove to you inequivocably that he is in fact the one true God, slumming among us humans, you would change your evaluation on the basis of convincing evidence.
Obviously, we Christians think that such a proof is available in the documentation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the things He did, the words He said, etc. And equally obviously, you find that evidence to be lacking through historical accident, the tendency of humanity to formulate hero-legends, the fact that the entire documentation is written with a biased perspective, etc. But don’t be too sure – the century is young yet, and I have a request in for Him to drop by and give you the proof you want, in His own good time. 
The point I would make is that the “dogmatic atheist” is in fact making a belief-based judgment, albeit in favor of the absence of an object of belief. The “pragmatic atheist” – in which group I would place all of you and Vile Orb as well – takes a rationalist perspective.
You differ from agnostics in that you refuse to accept the potential existence of something not proven, at least until such proof becomes available. An agnostic simply submits an “insufficient evidence – not proven” verdict; you say that the case must be dropped without prejudice on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
How close am I to the truth there?
