Comment 23 by Schrodinger's Cat :

Personally I think the deeper one gets into such arguments, the more fallaciousness arises on all sides. That is why I think that the best arguments against God are the simplest, such as there being absolutely no evidence that he exists. Why discuss a being in detail, when there's not the slightest evidence he exists at all ?

Right, but that argument has never gained any traction because it puts the burden of proof on an immutable religious construct which has evolved a crust protecting it from such altercations. The same ‘crusty reasoning’ could be exposed by asking "Can you prove Allah does not exist?" By recognizing that religion itself is a product of natural or maybe ideological selection, we can reason that the mechanisms composing their foundations are more specialized than those of any religion before them, and are particularly well suited to installation in the human mind and not so easily cracked.

Unfortunately that does not leave us with many avenues other than science vs. scripture, unless we are willing to go to bat and challenge the ideologies outright and publicly like Richard Dawkins (kudos.) As close as I can think to come, is to contend god directly and attempt to move the burden of proof:

“My existence entitles me to command more forces in this place than your god(s) do, rendering me more powerful, omniscient and benevolent. This is incontestable and I stand before you ready to be humbled or enlightened. When such a time should pass as I am no longer able to stand, you should concede or prove I do not exist.”