I read your post and find it interesting yet somewhat empty and incoherent. One of your statements is “There should be nothing beyond the touch of examination, no concept or aspect of ideology should be immune to scrutiny.” I agree, yet have you done that very test on the word of God, or have you dismissed it outright based on your opinion of “Christians” you have met or for some other reason? (By the way some Christians or so-called Christians can be down right nutty.) The bible over and over exhorts examination of its claims. Even Jesus told the apostle Thomas to “test the holes in His hands and side to confirm that it indeed was Him”, and did not condemn Thomas for his doubt.
Also, your premise seems to indicate that there is no absolute truth per your statement, “Most atheists, of the ones I've known, simply realize that they are willing to accomodate the reality that any item they have currently accepted as true is only provisionally. There can, and often does, come a time when some aspect of your understanding must be adjusted when new evidence or information comes to light.” While that works for things like the once held belief that the world was flat, or humans cannot fly (even if it requires the aid of planes and rockets), it does not address the foundational biblical principal that good and evil exist, while Christianity does. Is murder (defined as the intentional taking of innocent life) always wrong, or is it based on some esoteric feeling held by the perpetrator. If I were to walk into your house and steal your keys and wallet and drive off with your car, is that theft, or am I justified because I lost my job and my wife and kids left me. Or, can the genocide going on in the Sudan (or the Killing Fields of Cambodia) and other parts of the world be explained away as relative.
So if you say “The religious are steadfast against such reckonings. The skeptics embrace such.”, and that means we acknowledge good and evil exist, believe murder, theft and other sin is always (not provisionally) wrong, I contend that logic dictates your premise is irrelevant and completely unrealistic.
If I understand correctly your comments are directed towards all religions, while I am speaking as a Christian. You say “Faith in nothing is hardly sad. Why would you put all your unquestioning belief, your "faith" as it is in anything?” I would seriously challenge you or any atheist on that statement. Every single human being that walks the earth has faith in something based their world-view. You bank on the “fact” that there is no God (faith), the agnostic banks on the “fact” that God cannot be known (faith), while the Christian banks on the fact that there is a God and He has made himself known through His word.