I've been pondering this for a couple of weeks now, and I think I've come to a conclusion. The current "cultural conflict" between atheists and the religious has little to anything to do with belief in any gods. It has to do with what the "New Atheists" believe and what the relgious don't believe.
This isn't a battle between theists and atheists. This is a battle between naturalism and supernaturalism. This is a battle between rationalism and irrationalism. This is a battle between skepticism and faith.
I realized this when I came to the conclusion that a deist can be rational. I don't agree with the deist stance, I find it useless and failing Occum's Razor. It isn't, however, necessarily irrational. Perhaps it is not fully informed, but due to the lack of a rock-solid explanation for the existence of something instead of nothing there is an argument that something had to "start" it all. Not that I find necessary the assumption that there was a start, but one can make the argument, and that argument is why I am an agnostic atheist and not a strong atheist.
Now, why a deist can be rational, acceptance of New Age claims by atheists is inherently irrational. New Age claims stand on the basis that confirmable evidence is not necessary. New Age claims accept supernaturalism with no evidence for such a thing and in fact there is evidence against it. New Age claims have been tested repeatedly and found wanting. Deist claims, on the other hand, are not currently testable, but if they were I would suspect many would drop the claim if they found the results compelling.
The question is: what do we do about our supernatural, faithful, irrational atheists?
Should we try more arguments from emotion and less logical arguments? I know it may turn a lot of stomachs, but if it is more effective to get people to be skeptical and rational it may be worth it.