Martin Gardner set skepticism forward but not full skepticism as he failed to apply fully skepticism to religon.He was a fideistic deist: he had no real reason to believe in even the deist one.
Evidently, he relies on the unsubstantiated arguments from happiness-purpose and Augustine's from angst. We atheists are as happy and have our own purposes and have no existential angst: we find enough good to love life but enough evil to find no Deity!
He laments by making the straw man aginst atheism emblazoned :" What does it mean to us[fideists] that trust in God works "To fideists it can only mean this- that belief in God is so emotionally rewarding, and the contray belief is so desolate that they cannot not believe. ... I believe because it consoles me."
No,we atheists have no reason for desolation as noted. Despite Sarte and a few others, no existential angst arises for anyone! That straw man is unworthy of any skeptic.
He could deftly eviscerate paranormal claims and such nonsense as faith-healing but in the end his apparent existential angst compelled him to accept this form of superstiton!
I say existential angst as he implies that without Deity, he himself would undergo torment,
Most atheists are glad to give up that superstition, some never having it. I just wanted to know at age sixteen were there Deity: never did I feel sad about any lack of Deity and never concerned myself over the future state!
He knew that Paul Kurtz exhorts exuberance for life, yet could not overcome his angst.
We full skeptics realize that for many the loss of Deity would annoy the many, but they could overcome that with time and by practicing exuberance.
We skeptics rely on the evidence, so when none fructifies, then we find claims wrong, and so we full skeptics find the Deity claim as faulty as creationism.
Full skepticims demand absolute regard for evidence, not faith.
See my blog Hume! for a response to Gardner's remarks about theistic arguments.