People like Dawkins and Dennet sell huge quantities of books and seats at lecture halls by combatting what I think we can all say is a pretty weak form of the notion of "God" (the "big man in the sky"). However, many of those who are called upon to rebut their claims treat similarly weak interpretations (e.g. modern folk interpretations of the Abrahamic God), thus "New Atheism" is still seen as a viable platform by many. The only way this anti-religious dogma can be quelled, as far as I see it, is by looking closely at what we mean when we say "God", and what is actually meant by the instigators of spiritual disciplines when they use similar terms. I'll be treating the Christian God, since that's the one we, predominantly Westerners, have grown up with.
The BMS idea is pretty popular amongst exoteric (casual or fanatical) Christians, because it's a nice and easy story to comprehend: a man bigger than the universe got bored and made everything the way he wanted it, then made a small version of himself to make different things. The big guy doesn't live here, but somewhere really really high up, and has an evil child under the earth. Evil comes about when the little man forgets the big man and listens to the evil child. Clearly this is dumb, I don't think it needs all that much exploring.
A more esoteric notion is that God is some fundamental force that creates and controls the spatiotemporal universe according to its own essential qualities (an idea found in a large amount of monastic literature). It is not a "person" in the way that you or I are individual "people", but both contains and suffuses all people. It's something like a "pinnacle of existence", a collection of ideal qualities, whence all lesser entities (such as ourselves) originate - the Form of the Good, as Plato would call it. It is perfect, and so its expressions - love, laughter, happiness, bliss - are also perfect, though imperfect forms of them - fear, crying, sadness, discomfort - are also to be encountered in this world. Don't worry, though: it's all part of the bigger plan, and it all works out in the end! Evil is only perceived by imperfect people; the perfect God sees no such thing in the dramas that unfold on this planet, as he is all-loving (meaning even the bad bits are loved). We all end up diffusing into this originating force at the "end of time", if that actually happens (death?).
Now, that's a much more agreeable notion of God, though it still has some holes, and is also really quite difficult for the uninitiated to understand (hence the downfall of religion over the ages). I'd like to propose an even more esoteric understanding of God that is nevertheless simple enough to be understood by anyone: God is the one who's watching. God is the one observing everything through everything. When there is sight through your eyes, it is not the person who sees, but God who is seeing; indeed, when you think of yourself as that person, it is not the person considering itself to be itself, but God who is aware of the idea of an "ego". When there is pain, it is God who is aware of the pain, and when there is joy, it is God who is aware of the joy. At the most fundamental level, when I say "I", I mean "God": the feeling of being alive, of existing, is what is fundamental to "me", for if I didn't exist, who am "I"?
When scrutinised, this can be seen to be a refined form of the previous notion: all phenomena occur in God, and all phenomena grow out of God; however, God itself is not a phenomenon to be perceived, because it is the one perceiving (thus we can call it "noumenon"). It has no qualities of its own - no shape, size, odour, colour, thoughts, feelings, dispositions, or anything - for it is that which is aware of qualities. How could it make anything out if it was something itself? All things would be blurred by its own qualities, and yet the variety of the universe is perceived unhindered.
And now, notice how our definition has progressed: the common modern interpretation is obviously faulty, the older esoteric understanding pretty but overly complicated. Where are we now? Right back at the beginning: "in principio verbum est, et apud verbum deum, et deus verbum est"; "before all else ('in principle') is the Word, and with the Word is God, and God is the Word" [John 1:1]. Or this: "the Kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be perceived... but I tell you, the Kingdom of God is within you" [Luke 17:21]. The New Testament itself contains this streamlined notion of God, though so many are blind to it (as prophesied). We have come full circle: what grew out of wisdom became knowledge, and knowledge dwindled to ignorance, whence wisdom was born again, as per the cycle of the ages.