I appreciate that, Colin, and I do partly see that. The problem is that the atheists are themselves making assumptions that aren't established. In this case... in your words...

"...the atheist sees no valid evidence for the existence of any gods. Not arguments, evidence. Given that fact, the massive correlation of religious affiliation with place of birth is indeed additional evidence for the lack of evidence to support any specific theistic religion."

So, the atheist "sees no valid evidence" and, from there, concludes there IS no evidence. And then, looks at the many religions around the world - most of which seem to have geographic centers - and sees that as additional evidence against religion.

That's not open-minded thinking. That's stacking the deck with unproven assumptions.

The reality is that there IS evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being. Now, atheists don't accept that evidence as valid or they see such evidence as mere "arguments." But that doesn't negate the fact that there IS evidence.

Today is Easter, so allow me to say that there IS evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Again, atheists aren't going to accept that evidence. Okay. I believe in the freedom of thought and conscience. But disagreement or a refusal to believe doesn't negate the evidence.

But the atheist rules all the evidence out as invalid because the atheist rejects the supernatural from the get-go. Therefore, any evidence that might indicate the supernatural is ruled "invalid."

I'm not saying this to be argumentative just as you weren't argumentative in your comments. Which I very much appreciate it. I carry no ill will toward anyone. I'm not attacking anyone. I understand the decision to stick to a naturalist closed materialist system. I do. I don't agree with that decision, but I understand it. I just wish everyone would understand that such a decision IS a choice. And that choice affects how we all look at the evidence.