If you're up for some serious mind stretching, follow me into the strange land of "Well, what if there's a real phenomenon, with a real process behind it?"
I have problems with both theist and atheist viewpoints.
The largest problem I have with the atheist viewpoint is that the idea of supernatural beings/forces of all shapes and sizes has been popping up throughout recorded history. It doesn't seem to matter what the culture is, when you get a group of people cooperating to get something done, unexpected stuff tends to happen, and more often than not gets attributed to some force outside the group. Saying there's nothing there strikes me as avoidance of data. More on that in a moment or two.
The largest problem I have with the theist viewpoint is probably best stated here:
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
I have enough problems patterning the data I have without needing to add a set of complications that seems to produce paradox as its prime side effect.
I'm including the Wikipedia link for those who may not have run across the parable before, but basically, when a phenomenon is, effectively, too large to sense the whole of in one shot, it is fairly easy, and indeed usual, to try to pattern it with whatever limited amount of data you have. Having once patterned something, people tend to stick with the original pattern unless it is utterly shattered by reality. When the pattern you create includes elements which are invulnerable to reality, even that possibility is excluded.
Practical Infinity - a puzzle of a concept
Mathematicians have been using the concept of infinity for years, and it's a word many of us toss around blithely, but there's at least some likelihood that any real (as opposed to mathematical) understanding of the concept is simply beyond what the brain can grab hold of, by definition. For me, the working definition is simply "larger than I can comprehend". Kind of useless when I'm trying to figure out what's going on with any specific phenomena. Ubiquitous when it comes to discussions of religion and/or the supernatural.
So, what happens if we start from scratch, as it were? What real data do we have? What practical concepts might encompass the data we think we have, and provide a more useful basis from which to explore this area?
If you haven't already decided that I'm totally out of my mind to be trying to make sense of this, please follow me below the break-thingie.
Note: Almost everything I'm going to be talking about here is from anecdotal data - more specifically, my own personal anecdotal data. Because those parts of it that are not wholly from my own experience are my interpretations of what I think is valid outside data. I invite you to check to see whether this possible interpretation makes sense in the light of your own experiences, when considered within the hypothesis below. Whether it may be "true" or not, does it offer a potentially useful perspective?
Hypothesis
Human beings are mildly telepathic when they are in close proximity. This condition may be due simply to the incredibly extensive neural network that each of us possesses, which not only allows internal physical coordination, but in addition produces a variable low level magnetic field that is as unique as a fingerprint for each individual. If this is correct, then a great deal of early learning consists not only of direct information transfer between individuals, but also of the increasing ability to distinguish between one's own internal signals and those that are being picked up from people in close contact. I will further posit that the transition from child to adult is effectively developing the ability to choose whether to accept such a link, rather than having it imposed without recourse.
Such links can vary widely in pattern and effect, but the specific possibility I want to concentrate on for this question is one that is analogous to distributed computing. Such a network among a group of people could produce an "entity", if you will, with the ability to solve larger problems than any of the individuals within it might. Whether this entity seems to have anthropomorphic characteristics will depend on the needs of the various individuals comprising the group.
Aside from the religious application, like characteristics can be seen in sports and technical teams which come together to perform specific tasks, "brainstorming" sessions, barnraisings, and a wide variety of other projects. The entity that is formed provides direct information to the individuals constituting the group which makes coordination within the group seem almost effortless. The key factor in all of these, when they work, seems to be a strong commitment on the part of the individuals involved to get mutually agreed upon results. The primary description that members of the group tend to give is "I was a part of something larger than myself." One result of a successful process, in many cases, is a tendency for the group to remain together as a group, attempting to reproduce the feelings of mutual support and strength that were a part of the original process.
Corrolary
Each time a group of people gets together religiously, a "new" god is created, which depends in its patterns on what that particular group desires at that particular time. That it has/is given the name of a previous entity is due to the group's motivation, rather than to the persistence of the entity when it is not being actively supported.
Thus, the god of "J" Street, the god of Westboro Baptist, and the god of your local congregation can have totally different goals and biases, not only between the specific congregations, but from week to week, as the goals of the individuals that make them up change. But they will all provide the same feelings of support and strength to their congregants while they are present, because this appears to be a standard side effect of having the linkage in the first place.
Covering My Ass
It's a hypothesis, people. It might even be testable. It does not preclude the existence or non-existence of some unknowable universal awareness, even though it may impact much of the basis of the phenomena usually used to support the argument. Think of it as a possible middle ground which both theists and atheists can gleefully attack, or maybe even think about.