Sadly, atheists' arguments always descend into semantics and nonsense because you're attempting to deny the most obvious fact in history. If I were to apply your epistemological theories consistently, I'd have to be a nihilist (as every honest atheist admits). That is, I can say there's inadequate proof for God only if I concede there's inadequate proof for anything & everything (w/ the possible exception of certain subatomic particles). If the mind that perceives the divine is unreliable &, thus, if I can dismiss that evidence because the mind is unreliable, then I must infer that the mind is unreliable, which means I have no tool to interact w/ or assess any evidence at all. I can't point to studies as proof of anything because what's a study but somebody claiming to have done something & to have observed a particular result, but claims aren't evidence, right? If I can & must dismiss millions of reports of the divine, why can I trust a handful of reports of "science"? The only possible distinction is that I assume the divine reports are unreliable, but I can't use that assumption to prove my conclusion (that the reports are unreliable because I assume such reports are unreliable). That is, why can I ignore when somebody tells me that they saw a resurrected Jesus but I can't ignore the same person telling me that they saw Pontius Pilate? All you can say is that you ASSUME the former report is less reliable than the latter, but why? I can't cite my own assumption as the proof of my own conclusion - that's circular. In short, far more people have reported the divine than have reported "scientific" findings...so how do I ignore the former & believe the latter? Honestly, I can't. In order to make such distinctions, I have to decide that my mind is reliable...which then creates certain problems - like my reliable mind sees things that atheism can't explain. Friend, if there's no God, then evolution is a joke - the odds against are so astronomical that it's basically impossible to calculate. You'd be more likely to win 50 lotteries on 50 tickets - far more likely.

Long and short, you're twisting yourself in knots to avoid the obvious: God exists. And, like I said, fine - I'll play along, but then all knowledge is impossible, everything is just "who knows because we don't have enough evidence." Either position is consistent & defensible, but you have to choose.