|Of course, going back to the OP, if we take Gould at his word, science can't be used to prove or disprove God. Therefore I'd suggest that atheism is a faith and a blind one.|
Your conclusions just don't follow, even if we accept Gould at his word. Atheistic arguments don't have to entail science. Science has given the contemporary atheist access to a more robust world view than prior generations had available. Humans naturally prefer answers to unknowns and it is clear humans often prefer an incorrect answer to an open question.
You misrepresent Gould's charity toward faith holders. If God were to exist beyond nature, then he couldn't be subjected to the scientific method. God's existing beyond nature, however, entails other concessions for theists and the problem is that most theists are unwilling to make these concessions. If God's existence is claimed on the basis of natural evidence vis a vis personal experiences, then this God does not superintend on nature, this God is enmeshed in nature and the querying theist has lost his position:
P1 = If God exists, then he exists beyond nature.
P2 = Science studies nature.
P3 = The assumption that it is possible something exists beyond nature.
C1 = God, given P1, were he to exist, could not be studied by science.
P4 = All evidences, claims and experiences relating to theology occur naturally in the universe.
P5 = Anything which occurs naturally in the universe can, in principle, be studied by science.
C2 = From P4, any evidence or claims made about the existance of a god can be studied by science.
C3 = Any evidence or claim with a natural explanation does not pertain to, or else entails the falsity, of P1.
P4 = The category of personal divine experiences has a natural explanation.
C4 = Personal divine experiences do not pertain to, or else entail the falsity, of P1.
It seems to me that there is no need to play word games with either the common meanings of atheism or faith. Any individual could adequately define their usage in the context of debate. Anyone seriously engaging this question should use some common philosophical definitions of words such as:
1. Knowledge, truth, etc.
And use the psychological definition of
2. Belief, experience
And the scientific sense of
3. Nature, probability.
One should also understand that dictionaries attempt to capture the vernacular. Philosophers, scientists and theists all must actively define their language when framing a discussion. Or else you're just using words improperly to give the illusion of a strong argument. For example:
P1: I know when I've had an experience.
P2: All my experiences have been real events.
P3: All real events are true.
P4: I've experienced the non-existance of all gods.
P5: I know that no gods exist.
C1: The truth of my experience entails the falsity of theism.
You can have false knowledge and experiences which do not accurately reflect reality.