Nope. Every single one of those statements is taken out of the context of the poster who then goes on to describe what s/he thinks God is. Or rather, isn't
Mostly, the texts all seem to follow the one who wrote "I don't think that anything could convince me."
My point is not to claim that there IS a god. I think so, but that's my problem, not yours
My point is that, from where I sit, the non-believers simply don't think that there is any possible evidence that would convince them of the existence of a deity. Shoot, if one DID show up and give proof of his/her/its existence, the response would be a huge moving of the goalposts.
I really like the last quote you used: Any god worth its salt would know how to convince any given human of its existence.
Well, it takes two people to deal with proof, does it not? Doesn't matter how convincing and how incredibly obvious the 'proof' one person offers, if the other guy won't accept it.
Indeed, that statement only works if the idea of free will is completely removed from the equation. Since a great many of us believe that free will exists, then, er....one always has the option of rejecting evidence, no matter how convincing someone ELSE might see it.
In other words, it's not God's fault if the folks He is attempting to prove Himself to are too stubborn to accept that proof. I mean, really...we have flat earthers, young earth creationists, folks who won't allow vaccinations, etc.
Why not people who, if God Himself showed up, would refuse to believe anything?
Same attitude.