I fail to see where I did this.

Every time you say "there is no evidence for religion."

Of course, all-knowing and all-seeing one. Whatever you say.

How much easier it is to say that than to actually engage with what he's said. It's the coward's way out.

And atheist does NOT say, sigh, there are no gods; it just says we don't believe in any.

Any time atheism says, "God is a delusion" it is saying there are no gods, not that it doesn't believe in any.

Why do these experiences and contact with holy people lead anyone to believe in the specific details of any religion? How do you get from there to "Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected three days later"? or "I had this amazing spiritual experience and it must have been Muhammad/Jesus/Buddha who gave it to me"?

I think in part it depends on the framework. But also the content of the experience. I have heard tell (never met any myself) of Muslims who had a mystical experience of Jesus and became Christians (yes, I know Jesus is a prophet in Islam; I'm just relating the story). In other cases such experience merely reaffirms the religious position the person has already made. Which leads to the question how did they decide on that religion in the first place? Some will have been through historical evidence or informal reasoning; others because that's what they grew up in, or that's what was in the society they grew up in. Most often a mixture of the three. Depends on the person.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Here you go, an atheist calling theism "delusion". Which means he must be sure for himself that God doesn't exist. This is not just a negative thing ("I don't believe X") but a positive thing ("I believe not-X").

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe

This is just a sad mixture of scientism and bulverism. Then again Sagan, although a great astronomer and popularizer of astronomy, was a pretty shitty philosopher. There's a reason why people called his show, "Sagan's Circus."

The prospective urge was always scientific

On what do you base this assumption? None of us were around then, and those people didn't leave much to us except cave paintings and stone tools. It's hard to see how you can extrapolate from that to their attitude about the world being scientific.

Ron The Simple Seeker is often assinine and irrelevant, and he's historically not interested in discussion, but in making Great Pronouncements From On High.

The irony of this is just astounding.

I did not call The Simple Seeker assinine and irrelevant, I was quoting descriptions provided by others.

Why would you quote inflammatory descriptions if not to be inflammatory? Maybe to discuss the description itself, but you weren't doing that, you were labelling Ron.

Unfortunately, belief in gods arose before our intelligence did

Another assumption for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Clearly both sides are capable of believing things on faith.