Any favorite atheist groups or leaders?

   You are assuming incorrectly that there is "zero" evidence.  To put that another way, you believe there is zero evidence.  That is one reason (there are more) it is "ludicrous" (dish / take) to claim you lack belief.

   The internet is replete with such nonsense because for decades now in real science it has been increasingly obvious that science is hitting a brick wall and absolutely cannot explain how life could begin in any "natural" lifeless scenario whatsoever.  A large number of people had assumed from the time of Darwin that science would one day "soon" demonstrate "animalcules" assembling by sheer chance.  They had become accustomed to assuming that religion is totally irrelevant and even blaming it for all the trouble in the world.  Bad habits are hard to break.  There has been a backlash against the shining truth that religion might be misguided, but there definitely needs to be some.

   I mentioned other reasons.  It is indeed more complicated.  Quite often the problem in these arguments about the existence of god is that there are obviously different definitions of a god being used by each side.  "Debating" makes no sense unless both sides debate the same topic.  Usually atheists are defining god in a way that no one else would.  Children are given the impression of god as an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds.  That however is only an accommodation to children who cannot understand abstract ideas very well yet.

   There are three things with distinctively different and independent characteristics that people mean when they talk about a god.

1. The abstract or indirectly identified forces in nature and society that assist society in developing ethical codes.
   
2. A benevolent director of spiritual or "extrasensory" phenomena such as clairvoyance, premonition, and other knowledge by revelation.
   
3. The answer to the question how life originated on a previously molten planet, which rather obviously is not found in lifeless nature, thus "supernatural" or intelligent.

   To argue that there is "no evidence" for #1 is ludicrous because it is as evident as baseball.  You can see the people going into and coming out of the buildings.  It is important to understand that most people who attend religious services use this definition far above all others.

   Arguments for extrasensory perception #2 are problematic in that it is so easily faked.  However there tests and evidence where first hand witnesses can see proof.  If a child suddenly speaks a language never experienced or studied the mother will know it was a special revelation because she knows exactly where the child has been and with whom the child's entire life, the rest of the world will just assume the child did have exposure to the language or studied it from books.  Various denominations have various attitudes to spiritual phenomena.  Some recognize it being possible in the modern world ("Pentecostals" for example) and some do not.

   The intelligent designer #3 is now a fact.  The tornado-in-a-junkyard argument against assembly is well established.  To claim there is a "false equivalence" between the biological construction and the tornado is that "backlash" against the obvious truth.  The only people who assert a false equivalence are people who never use words as long as "equivalence" otherwise and think they sound intelligent.