There is no evidence, and no tenable arguements, for the existence of any gods.

First, I'll start by saying that I am an atheist. My position is that belief in god/gods is not entirely unreasonable. To start with, your opening round was just a long-winded version of saying, "there is no evidence for god because there is no evidence for god." So I'll at least show how it might be possible for a reasonable person to believe in some sort of deity. For evidence, most people would argue for religious experience. Now you might say psychology, sociology, and anthropology do a better job of explaining these things than god. But you can't examine every case of religious experience, or jump into someone else's brain and experience their experience. So you can only make general assumptions. Here is a thought experiment: Suppose we lived in a tropical environment. But I venture off to the rocky mountains and return with tales of a strange substance called snow. But you don't believe me since there is no way I can demonstrate it to you in our environment, so you have no reason to believe me. But snow does exist. It's easy to see how this analogy can be applied to religious experience. It may not be evidence that can convince other people, but it does lead the person to reasonable believe there is a god, just as my voyage would reasonably lead me to believe there is snow. You said: "Thus, it requires not just a simple blind faith to believe in a god, but a faith that must systematically oppose the realities of human knowledge and understanding, as well as rational awareness." This is a stretch. Certainly some people take this approach to believing in god. But with almost every belief you can find some people who do the same thing. Furthermore, you don't have any firsthand account of most of the things you believe either. Have you ever seen DNA for yourself, or electrons? What you do is no different than what theists do--you just have to take what opposing people tell you and find which ones do a better job for your making sense of reality from your vantage point. So the idea that theists are just lazy and don't want to look for evidence, while you are the only one out there examining the evidence is bunk. Also, doesn't it say in your profile that you believe in life on other planets? Evidence? It could very well be that reality is too complex for us to understand and that the patter recognition software our brains are equipped with isn't up to task for the job, so people get different answers. Here is one scenario of how some type of concept of god might exist: One theory for our consciousness is the idea that the proximity of our neurons firing off and communicating with one another is the cause of cognition. Likewise, it is easy to see how the proximity of life and it's communicating with itself could give rise to some sort of "meta-conscienceless" to the earth. This depends on your concept of god, but that isn't the issue here. So, despite the fact that we see so many Pat Robertsons of the world, especially where I live--the buckle of the bible belt--it is easy to forget that there are some reasonable theists. Also, if you are going to try to persuade people that belief in god is a bad idea, it is good to not take such a condescending tone. The reciprocation of tolerance will make it more likely that the other person will hear you out on your argument.